[ Page 457 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Statement by Hon. Mr. Barrett on Alaska pipeline — 457

Mr. Smith — 458

Mr. D.A. Anderson I — 458

Mr. Wallace — 459

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act (Bill No. 87) Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 459

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Calder — 459

Mr. McClelland — 464

Mr. Williams — 471

Mr. Nicolson — 477

Mr. Liden — 484

Statement Statement by Hon. Mr. Cocke on the British Columbia Medical Association and the Vietnam hospital project — 487

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce to the Legislature the Hon. Bill Petley who is the Minister of Financial Institutions for the Province of Quebec. I may say, very briefly, that he is holding a national conference of all the provinces of Canada in April or May on consumer and company affairs, in the City of Quebec. And we in British Columbia will be very glad to participate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the distinct honour today to welcome to the House Miss Revelstoke, a very beautiful young lady representing a very beautiful alpine city. And I'd ask the House to join with me in welcoming to the galleries Miss Judy Kukura, Miss Revelstoke, and her chaperon, Mrs. Marlene McQuarrie.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of welcoming right here on the floor of the House today another very lovely lady, Mrs. Lois Haggen, who served here in the Legislature with great distinction for 10 years. I'm sure the House will join in welcoming her.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to introduce to the House a young man in his 91st year. This young man hewed a farm in the Fraser Valley out of the primeval forest, and he's still enjoying very good life. He did have a young lady drive him down today — so, Mr. Hugh MacDonald and Mrs. Winter.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON, D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the House to make a statement on an important public matter.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this morning it was brought to my attention that President Nixon, in private talks with Rogers Morton, the Interior Secretary of the United States, said he preferred the Alaska pipeline over any Canadian alternative.

It is reported that Mr. Nixon said the pipeline will provide 10 per cent of the U.S. consumed oil in 1985 and, "We'd better get on with it." Morton said legislation will be prepared and presented to Congress to overcome the court ruling to hold up the Alaska line. Secretary Morton said all options have been considered. The Mackenzie Valley pipeline is less likely now than a year ago because of problems with the service road and environmental restrictions.

This was a report received by my office. I immediately contacted the Prime Minister's office and informed the Prime Minister's office that I was going to attempt to contact the President or presidential aide. I did indeed contact the President's office. I was unsuccessful in speaking to the President but I did speak to an aide. As a result of that conversation, I wired the Prime Minister the following telegram:

DEAR MR. PRIME MINISTER:

THIS MORNING I LEARNED THAT UNITED STATES PRESIDENT NIXON IS CONSIDERING TAKING LEGISLATIVE STEPS TO PROCEED WITH THE ALASKAN PIPELINE. AS YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT IS UNALTERABLY OPPOSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ALASKA PIPELINE SINCE IT WOULD RESULT IN SHIPPING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF OIL PAST OUR COASTLINE.

UPON LEARNING OF PRESIDENT NIXON'S ACTIONS, I DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH ONE OF HIS WASHINGTON AIDES, MR. FAIRBANKS, WHO INFORMED ME BY TELEPHONE THAT THE PROBLEM OF U.S. OIL SUPPLIES WAS BROUGHT TO THE PRESIDENT'S ATTENTION AT A MEETING OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S RESOURCE COMMITTEE THIS VERY MORNING.

MR. FAIRBANKS SAID THE PRESIDENT IS SEEKING WAYS TO BREAK THE LEGAL IMPASSE RESULTING FROM LAST WEEK'S COURT DECISION WHICH IS HOLDING BACK THE ALASKA PIPELINE. I UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT'S INTERIOR SECRETARY, MR. ROGERS MORTON, IS DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY OF PREPARING LEGISLATION THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO CONGRESS TO OVERCOME THE COURT RULING. MR. FAIRBANKS ALSO INFORMED ME THAT THE PRESIDENT EXPECTS BOTH THE ALASKA PIPELINE ROUTE, AS WELL AS THE MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE ROUTE, TO BE IN OPERATION IN THE FUTURE.

REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ALASKA PIPELINE, I INFORMED MR. FAIRBANKS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DESIROUS OF MAKING DIRECT REPRESENTATION ON THIS MATTER TO MR. MORTON ON THE DETAILS OF SUCH A MEETING. I MUST SAY THAT IT APPEARS THAT SUCH A MEETING CAN BE ARRANGED.

To go on with the telegram:

IF SUCH A MEETING DOES TAKE PLACE, I WOULD BE PLEASED, MR. PRIME MINISTER, TO HAVE YOU OR A REPRESENTATIVE JOIN US IN

[ Page 458 ]

SUCH A VISIT TO WASHINGTON. ALSO, I'M SURE THE PEOPLE WOULD WELCOME A STATEMENT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OPPOSING THE ALASKA PIPELINE AND THE SHIPPING OF OIL DOWN FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA'S COAST.

I expect, Mr. Speaker, to hear back from Secretary Morton's office within 24 hours. I hope that if we are faced with legislative action by the United States Government, the federal government will join us in putting our opposition directly to the political decision-makers in Washington, D.C.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in reply for the official Opposition that we welcome the statement of the Premier regarding his opposition to the movement of crude oil through a pipeline, to the Alaska coast, and then down the coast of the Province of British Columbia by boat.

I would hope, in your discussions with the Prime Minister of Canada, you're able, on an international level, to convince the United States that this would indeed be a very retrogressive step. I would hope further that the Premier of our province, if necessary, is prepared to take this matter to the courts, if that is the only way that we can protect the rights of the Province of British Columbia in making sure that our coastline is protected and not left open to exploitation by tankers plying up and down.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, earlier on I was going to welcome a group of students from Reynolds School here with Mrs. Thelma Pleckett and Miss Brown, their teachers. I'm sure all the Members of the House would like to welcome them. I would also like to join in the welcome of my friend Mr. Tetley from the Province of Quebec, who was a very kind and generous host to myself and other Members of the House of all parties when we visited that province in our trip last fall.

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the statement of the Premier a number of matters I believe must be put in perspective.

First of all, the Government of Canada, in fact the whole parliament of Canada, has already passed a resolution condemning the west coast tanker proposals. Therefore there is a fairly clear indication on the part of the federal government that they have no wish for — I should not just say the federal government; I should say all parties in the House — this to take place.

The statement came out, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy here. I've made some very rough and quick notes. I was unaware that it would be made at this time. Nevertheless, the statement referred to by the Premier was a press report dealing with the legislative proposals of Rogers Morton and, of course, President Nixon arising out of the victory of three American environmental groups; the Fishermen's Union of Cordova, Alaska; the Canadian Wildlife Federation and myself last Friday.

We expected that this step would be taken. It was a logical step. We'd been told that it would be taken if we won on these grounds. I should simply inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that I did put the position to Rogers Morton in June, I believe, of 1971, personally to him at hearings in the Interior Department in Washington, D.C. He has been informed constantly of Canadian government position, in particular by a letter dated May 4, 1972, with respect to the Mackenzie line. I think he has all along been kept pretty well up to date on developments in Canada on this.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the decision to go to Congress with proposed legislation was taken by Nixon and was not unexpected. It's no cause for alarm for British Columbians. It's perfectly expected, had this matter been followed more closely by the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. The question, of course is that in Congress itself the President will find that there have been 86 Members of the House of Representatives and 23 senators, all of whom less than a year ago wrote letters to the President requesting consideration of the Canadian route prior to any decision on the Alaska route.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, generally these statements are by leave of the House and are not to be used for the purpose of debate. Therefore, in any essential statement on the matter, each party leader is invited by courtesy of the House to make a short statement. Please remember for the future.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm trying to be fair to each group in this House in order of their precedence here in party numbers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I accept your comments there. I am curious, of course, that President Nixon finds it necessary to take steps today as a result of our victory on Friday last and my personal one, as I am the only individual named in that suit apart from the Secretary of the Interior. If, however, you wish me to cut short my remarks, I will simply repeat that this step taken by Nixon was perfectly expected and I would suggest that instead

[ Page 459 ]

of telegrams back and forward between Premiers and the Prime Minister, neither of whom are as aware on this matter as others in this country, we try and see what best can be done to preserve the British Columbia interest.

It was along these lines I was commenting on the statement. We have friends in Congress. We have supporters of various political persuasions. We know that the energy crisis is in the Midwest and not on the west coast, where of course the Alaska pipeline would deliver the oil. I just fear, Mr. Speaker, that precipitous action, which has occurred before, by people who are not aware of the details or intricacies of this problem, will not further the Canadian or British Columbian interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If it's not possible for me to outline this at this time, I will resume my seat. But I do feel that it is important.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Are you opposing this position?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I find it difficult that the Minister of Health Services would smile so happily on a complicated matter that has involved three years of study and a minimum of eight trips to Washington, D.C., by me.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, there is a remedy for anything that's an emergency and it's not by this means of a debate on this subject. Just a simple statement from each party as to where you stand on an important matter, if you have anything to say.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The statement, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: I am not inviting a further conversation, Hon. Member. I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay on behalf of the Conservative Party.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): On behalf of the Conservative Party, there need be no doubt where we stand. We stand behind the policy that we oppose oil tankers down the coast.

Now these comments about motherhood aren't very smart, I don't think. But anyway, the point from our side of the House is that this has now reached the crunch, as we see it, and that the attitude of the Premier in taking the matter to the Prime Minister of Canada and seeking the negotiations that he mentioned, I think, will have our strongest support.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 87 intituled An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 87 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Atlin.

HON. F.A. CALDER (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, since my first election to this House in 1949 I have been involved in many "firsts" as far as our native people of British Columbia are concerned. At that time, I was the first native Indian to be elected to a legislative body in Canada. Today, Mr. Speaker, it gives me considerable satisfaction to be speaking before you as a Minister of the Crown of British Columbia — again the first such Minister of Indian ancestry in a legislative assembly in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I mention this merely as an example of what may be done by any other person of aboriginal ancestry in Canada who chooses to set a goal in politics or business and is willing to persevere and work to achieve these goals. I hope my example has inspired and will inspire a similar feeling of self-confidence in the many able Indian young people throughout our country.

This may be the time to mention that the native people of Canada do not appreciate being lumped together as a faceless body known as "Indians." We would prefer to be recognized by our own distinctive national, linguistic and cultural characteristics. This is a common feeling with aboriginal peoples in this country.

I am sure that all of you are aware now that I am a Nishga from the Naas Valley, with a vested interest in this country. At the same time, I would like to mention that my very able executive assistant is Mr. Reginald Kelly, who is a Haida from the Queen Charlotte Islands. We are both of northern peoples on this coast who have a long history prehistorically of being able, successful people, and we are both applying these characteristics towards success in this modern society.

As Minister without Portfolio, my assignment from the Premier is to investigate all matters pertai-

[ Page 460 ]

ning to provincial legislation and regulations which might assist in extending more services to status Indians on reserves who may now be deprived of such services. This also means determining whether any legal barriers might exist in extending such services and recommending any changes necessary.

Provincial voting rights were extended to Indians on reserves in 1949. There has not been that much of a concerted effort on the part of the provincial authorities to ensure that all provincial services are available to that portion of the electorate. This may be the first time that the so-called "Indian problem" has been given official scrutiny with the purpose of making constructive changes, if such things can be done.

In order to be effective, Mr. Speaker, it has been necessary to make the presence of my office known to all departments of this government for the purpose of explaining the needs of the Indian people as may be affected by any particular department.

From long habit, the needs of Indians on reserves in this province have been considered to be only within the orbit of the federal Department of Indian Affairs without realizing that provincial services should be extended to all citizens without discrimination of jurisdiction.

The response from the various provincial departments has been most encouraging and any discussions which have taken place have been done with the proper spirit of finding solutions when problems presented themselves.

My office has been involved in questions of land taxation, education, municipal affairs; the Attorney General's department in regard to court work; the Provincial Secretary's department with its various cultural activities; roads and bridges under the Department of Highways; various programmes under the ARDA agreement of the Department of Agriculture; mineral rights on Indian reserves under the Department of Mines. I have active negotiations and dealings with these departments. In the near future, Mr. Speaker, I will be involved in a similar way with the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources; the Department of Recreation and Conservation; the Department of Travel Industry; the Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance; and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.

This list is given to merely indicate, Mr. Speaker, the varied involvements of my office in educating the provincial departments as well as the Indian people and their representatives who may have asked for interpretations as they affect them. The same effort has been made to conduct a liaison with the federal Department of Indian Affairs to explain the provincial legislation and regulations as they affect Indians, and in turn to acquire a better understanding of the federal legislation which may have an effect on provincial legislation as well as the lives of the Indian people on reserves.

This is the type of dialogue which is going on constantly between my office and many departments and several levels of government.

You are aware that the Government of Canada, through the federal Department of Indian Affairs, has a constitutional responsibility towards welfare of Indian people under the British North American Act. This marks the necessity for close continued cooperation between these two levels of government in order to be effective as a force of change. Through the efforts of my office there has been a sustained friendly level of cooperation between the Department of Indian Affairs and the various provincial government departments at a level and with a spirit which has not been present in past relationships.

This is mentioned to indicate that one of the purposes of my office is to provide a bridge of dialogue between all levels of government which affect the welfare of all native people in this province.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be a characteristic of British Columbians to have a parochial outlook and feel that whatever is done in British Columbia is quite different and far ahead of other provinces in legislation and pertinent matters. I was aware that there have been experiments on behalf of native people by other provincial governments and I have written to each province to determine what has been done on behalf of the native people. For the information of the Members of this House, I can mention a few of the things which are happening elsewhere in Canada.

The government of Nova Scotia has stated that all services provided by the provincial government are available to Indians as to other citizens. That province also has a liaison committee — composed of a representative of the federal government, one from the provincial government and one from the Union of Nova Scotia Indians — who meet regularly every month to consider ways and means of improving services to the native people.

In the Province of Ontario it has been a long established practice since the late 1950's to amend various provincial Acts from time to time in such a way that Indian bands, for the purposes of specific Acts, are recognized as municipalities. Under these arrangements many Indian bands have been spending provincial funds for welfare assistance to residents on reserves, by arrangements with the provincial department.

In reference to the Department of Highways of Ontario; the provincial government offers a subsidy for the building of roads on reserves up to 50 per cent of the cost and goes as high as 80 per cent of the cost in construction of culverts and bridges.

From the Province of Alberta, I have received a very complete report on the establishment of a native counseling service which provides some legal assistance to native people involved in the judicial court

[ Page 461 ]

system. That service had its beginning from the intensive desire and efforts of the native people in Alberta as early as 1964. It is just now becoming an effective system with the aid and encouragement of the Department of the Attorney General of Alberta and the Department of Indian Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I am mentioning these merely as examples of what has been done in other provinces because I have the feeling that in British Columbia there has been the inference that this provincial government is being generous in assigning me as a Minister without Portfolio to study what could be done for native people as though it were something which has not been done elsewhere.

My advice to you, Mr. Speaker, is that you should be aware that all native people in British Columbia are citizens who pay all taxes except the provincial land tax and therefore are people who contribute to all services which are provided under legislation put through this House.

They are voters, taxpayers, and they support all political parties according to their own individual tastes. In supporting such services to native people and making them freely available, you are merely opening your minds to the needs of your constituents, Mr. Speaker, all of them.

Now that this survey has begun, I hope and expect that the information which may be collected by my office on matters pertaining to Indians will result in legislative changes for assistance to Indian people and serve as a model for the rest of Canada. This sentiment is in keeping with your outlook as British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, may I just add a note here. The recent Supreme Court decision on the Nishga case has set in motion many different sentiments and feelings both in the halls of government and in the minds of Indian people who have been advocating this recognition for several generations.

I noticed in this morning's news that the native people of the Yukon territory have received a very favourable hearing from the federal government concerning the possible settlement of native lands in the Yukon. Mr. Speaker, I believe this to be the direct outcome of the Nishga decision.

Mr. Speaker, since the early 1960's the Canadian public has been deluged by discussions concerning the sacredness of preserving the French language on the same basis as English in Canada in order to preserve the culture of the French Canadians who are considered one of the founding nations.

If this assumption is generally accepted, then there is a much greater need to consider the protection of the culture and the languages of the aboriginal people of this country who are really the founding people. They were here to meet the first explorers who came from Europe. The preservation of the culture of these people has been overlooked.

The strength of cultural identity is bound up in language as well as in custom, Mr. Speaker. If the language disappears then the cultural identity also disappears. Canada takes pride in encouraging the mosaic of cultures of all people. I present to you the fact that an effort should be made now to preserve the cultural identity of the aboriginal people of this province.

For this purpose, Mr. Speaker, my portfolio is recommending to this Government that legislation should be brought in to encourage and prepare for the teaching of the various aboriginal languages in the different schools and communities of British Columbia wherever such requests may be made.

In all my travels throughout British Columbia, there is the constant comment of grandparents to the effect that their grandchildren no longer understand their own tribal tongue. It is estimated that in every community there are now relatively few persons who are eloquent in their own language, especially in areas which are adjacent to urban centres.

The necessity of making a living has made the use of English mandatory in order to compete. The native languages are preserved in a greater proportion in the more remote parts of the province.

Along with the cultural revival of interest in Indian arts and customs, there has been a renewed interest in the learning of Indian languages. Therefore, the introduction of legislation to preserve Indian languages in this province would be of great benefit to those Indian people who have a strong desire to pass on their own language and a knowledge of their own culture to their own children, so that the culture should not pass away.

The teaching of these languages, with the financial support and full sanction of the Department of Education, would go a long way towards reestablishing a sense of pride in aboriginal ancestry and the resulting feeling of dignity and self-worth which were an inherent part of the Indian people before the arrival of the European.

The establishment of such legislation could be the basis for a better contribution from aboriginal peoples in British Columbia who may feel a greater self-respect by recognition being given to the teaching of their own language to their own children — and to interested non-Indians, who may wish to learn the language also.

The high schools in our province offer language courses for credit in French, German, Italian, Latin and Spanish. In addition, evening classes are available to interested adults in many languages — for instance, Japanese, Russian and Chinese. Undoubtedly, it is worthwhile to teach these languages in British Columbia.

However, Mr. Speaker, all these languages and cultures would be well-preserved in their own countries in Europe and Asia, even if there was no effort

[ Page 462 ]

at all on our part. This is the point of fundamental difference between these and other native cultures and languages.

Unless we ourselves take steps in the very near future to preserve and develop what there is left, our own native languages and cultures will disappear completely within a generation or two.

Mr. Speaker, there is nobody else on other continents who can perform this task for us. There will be a motion introduced towards an establishment of a language bill — bilingualism in the province, if you wish — of teaching English and the respective languages in Indian schools. This would be the first in Canada. I'm very hopeful when this motion is introduced and brought before the House that all Members will support it.

Here's an old subject, Mr. Speaker, that I have always brought to the attention of this House, ever since I came to the House. It has to do with air ambulance service. It's a little different now because I used to bring this subject up when I was on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, ever since my election in 1949, I have advocated continuously the establishment of an air ambulance service in the Province of British Columbia. I represent, Mr. Speaker, a very large constituency located in the northwest comer of this province. So large that it's equivalent to the size of five Vancouver Islands.

It is a very mountainous and rugged territory. There may not be as large a population there as exists in the other constituencies; however, it is an area that has one of the greatest natural resource potentials in the whole of the province.

It is a mineral belt. It is a forest area. It has water power potential equal to other areas, but has yet to be utilized. It is a well-known sports and commercial fishing district. It has one of the biggest wild game areas in North America. It is the most beautiful and picturesque part of the province, to the extent that Atlin is known the world over as the "Switzerland of British Columbia." It has a great tourist potential and, when developed, it could be one of the most outstanding recreation areas in the whole of British Columbia.

And yet, with all these advantages, Mr. Speaker, it is still a virgin territory and, even though in years back there was a lack of services in terms of transportation, access roads and communication, pioneers dared to enter the territory to become frontier people.

As the years went by, these people continued to carve out an existence of their own. Mr. Speaker, the results of their efforts have led to the gradual development of mines, forestry, exploration and production. It is to these people and their sons and daughters who have taken their places in developing the north country that I speak in terms of public services.

What are these public services? Better education and educational facilities, medical attention — and there has been a tremendous lack up to now — access roads, hospitals, dental clinics, and above all, a free air ambulance service.

Mr. Speaker, as one who was born and has lived and worked in the area, I can truthfully say that I have witnessed or have heard definite evidence of deaths and suffering of persons because of this lack of fast medical aid. It is because of this knowledge that, when I was elected to office, I vowed that I would continually press for the establishment of an air ambulance service.

Mr. Speaker, may I point out here that the earnings are average in these remote areas — in most cases below average, as is usual in a developing frontier. Even though there may be private air services available, people cannot afford the exorbitant rates that are charged. I know of many cases where people cannot afford costs in the area of $200 to be flown out of Telegraph Creek to the nearest hospital — and no doubt the same amount when they return to the community.

I am speaking only for the area that I know best, Mr. Speaker. However, since entering politics I have had the opportunity of visiting other parts of the province and I find that such service is becoming a necessary service.

In travelling to the west coast and on the coast of British Columbia, the rest of the north of the province, and in talking to people, I find that they are heartily in support of such a service.

Mr. Speaker, immediately following my entry into this Legislative Assembly, I began correspondence with the flying doctor service of Australia and with the air ambulance service authorities of Saskatchewan.

Following the study, I introduced a motion on the floor of this House for very serious consideration. However, this motion was given no consideration by the previous administration. It is my pleasure at this time, because of our programme last election, to reintroduce this motion for serious consideration, not only on behalf of the Government, but for all Members of the floor of this House. I have every confidence that this motion will be adopted, and I will be most hopeful that this will lead eventually to legislation in the near future.

Another point which we and many Members raised while we were on the opposite side of the floor was the matter of equalization grants. I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this is one subject that is a sore point with the northern people, the people who are located in remote or outlying areas. It has to do with the equalization grants.

Again, ever since my term of office I have advocated this educational requirement in the remote

[ Page 463 ]

and isolated areas of this province. I speak now for those students in the outlying areas of the province who do not have the local opportunity of higher education. I will remind the Members of the House that these students of whom I speak are sons and daughters of people who have pioneered the north, the west coast, the interior and all other parts of the province that are considered frontier country.

Because of less than average earnings, these young people just do not have the opportunity of higher education. Mr. Speaker, it is a most sad state of affairs in our wealthy province when much of the revenue for the province is coming from these outlying areas where many of these students live in educational starvation.

It is my pleasure to announce that one of our Members will be introducing a motion for all Members of this House to seriously consider. If adopted, I am hopeful that this will lead to greater equalization of educational opportunity where it is needed so desperately.

May I say a word on northern development, Mr. Speaker. In speaking of northern development — and all Members of the floor of this House recognize that this is the subject that I have been mentioning for the last 23 years — I would remind the Members, and I want to make this point very clear, that the previous two subjects, air ambulance service and equalization grants to students in, remote areas, are part and parcel of northern development.

These two important subjects are definite aspects of northern development. It is because we know that these are definite requirements, we placed it upon our agenda in the last election. It was promised to the people of the north. And I think I speak for the rest of the northern Members — Fort George, Omineca, Prince Rupert, Skeena — I speak on your behalf on this.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Peace River?

HON. MR. CALDER: Yes, my friend, I'll include you.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has to keep the Peace.

HON. MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, I'll remind the Government, it was a promise to the people of the north; and as a MLA of the north, I intend to remind the Government to fulfil our word to the northern people.

I will not elaborate on every phase of northern development, Mr. Speaker, as this I have done on numerous occasions in and out of this House. I would just like to deal with the very important subject of the Stewart-Watson Lake highway.

Concerning this most important highway, one thing stands out in my mind all these years, Mr. Speaker, and many of my own associates in the north have all reminded me of it. It is this: I recall back in May of 1949 as I sat in a small motel located in the little community of Lower Post, which was then a Hudson's Bay post, four prospectors appeared in the area. They announced to the world the discovery of asbestos in what is now Cassiar.

Mr. Speaker, this was my first entry into politics and I was on the campaigns. Two weeks after the appearance of these four prospectors, two weeks later, I entered as my campaign recommendation that an access road for transportation of asbestos should have its terminus at the Canadian sea-port of Stewart. As far as northern development is concerned, the completion of this road has been one of my main points on the floor of this House.

I would like to announce to the Members that this road, after a great many years of construction, was completed last October. What does this road mean to the economy of British Columbia?

I would remind the Members that this road now has resulted in the shortest link between the State of Alaska and the State of Washington by 1,000 miles. When in full use, it will take at least 50 per cent of the traffic away from the Alaska highway and, Mr. Speaker, I think, on this basis, no longer will you hear the demand to pave the Alaska Highway. This is the road that is going to be paved. As of last October, 20 miles have already been paved and the first destination is, of course, Cassiar. That's a distance of 84 miles and no doubt it will eventually end up in Terrace and Hazelton.

You will note, Mr. Speaker, on the budget that was presented that $750,000 has been allocated to the Stewart-Watson Lake highway, and the Department of Highways has notified me that most of this money will be spent this year on further paving. Mr. Speaker, because of my conviction that this road will be a prime factor in northern development, I was happy indeed to have been invited to witness the completion and the opening of the Nass River Bridge last year, which resulted in the joining of the Stewart-Watson Lake highway to that of the Stewart-Terrace highway and to Highway 16.

I am inviting all you Members, through you, Mr. Speaker, to visit my beautiful riding by way of this major access to the State of Alaska. All of you should come when the Highway Department announces the official opening of the Stewart-Watson Lake highway, sometime in the latter part of June or early July.

Mr. Speaker, as our Government policies are implemented, I am looking forward to an orderly development of the whole north of British Columbia. I am convinced that I will live to see the day that these policies will be in terms of more equal distribution of public services. Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, I have accused the governments of

[ Page 464 ]

taking the wealth out of the north but not returning the public services to the people of the north. Mr. Speaker, northern development will not be complete until all public services are brought to the people who are entitled to them, Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments of the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder). I think that much of the shame of this country has been the manner in which we have deliberately emasculated the cultural values of our natives, and it's time we put an end to it.

I should also mention, Mr. Speaker, since no one else has and you were kind enough to inform us, that those flowers on the opposite side are in recognition of the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) birthday, and we'd like to congratulate her and wish her well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Again. Mr. Speaker, if I could quote the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) slightly out of context, I'd like to say that "this isn't such a hot budget and I don't intend to support it."

I'd also like to make reference, Mr. Speaker, to another comment that the Attorney General made yesterday, I believe, with regard to the Bible and St. John the Divine's prophecy about the pale horse — "Behold a pale horse, and the name of him that sat on him was death"… et cetera.

My colleague from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) then recommended that the Attorney General should look further into that reference and other references to the Bible that he made, to find out about whom he was talking. Who was the person and who were the persons who were riding on this pale horse to Armageddon?

So I asked my colleague from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) to give me a short Bible lesson this morning, and he was kind enough to do that. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd just read a bit from the "good book" about these people who are riding to Armageddon on the pale horse.

And it said: "…but I shall control you by putting My bit into your jaws and bringing you and all your army, horsemen and cavalry all of them fully armed; — a numerous host, with shields and bucklers, and trained to the use of swords; — and Pars, Kush, and Phut, all of them with shield and helmet; — Gomer and all his hordes; the house of Thorgarmah." (Laughter).

"All his hordes," that's right. And "from the far north and the whole of his hordes…." Those are the people who rode those pale horses to Armageddon, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Member for Surrey. I appreciate that. I had good writers.

Mr. Speaker, if this budget speech was designed to make the investors of this province breathe a little easier, to allay some of the fears that prevail among the people, perhaps it was partially successful.

There is a message in that budget — a message that clearly tells the people of British Columbia that the worst is yet to come.

For I believe, despite all of the posturing by the Premier, that this is basically a deceitful budget and that there is no relationship between the figures in this budget and what will actually happen to the expenditures in this province in the coming fiscal year.

The first item, Mr. Speaker, in the list of expenditures in our estimate book is proof enough of this — at least for someone like myself who is basically unskilled in financial matters. But I like two and two to make four most of the time, if it's possible. In this budget I have difficulty making the figures add up.

I was prepared, Mr. Speaker, being a new Member and no financial wizard, to accept the Finance Minister's assessment that this was an open and honest document. But on that very first item in the budget we find the first item of deceit.

The section is called "Legislation" and it's here that the Members' salaries are listed. And I see under this category the item "Sessional Allowances". And it says "Allowances", plural, Mr. Speaker. I see that I've been given a $2,000 raise which is pretty good. I never even had to ask my boss for it, which I like too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did he not discuss it with you?

MR. McCLELLAND: Never even asked me.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ah, shame!

MR. McCLELLAND: When I added up all these figures listed for the Members' indemnities, Mr. Speaker, and multiplied that by the number of MLA's that are in the House — from time to time — I arrived at a grand total of $660,000 and so did the Finance Minister. So we agreed so far.

And I was under the impression that I'd been given a $2,000 raise, which isn't bad for a brand new boy with no previous experience. Until I read the papers. The Vancouver Sun told me that it wasn't a $2,000 raise at all. It was $14,000 a year that I'd been raised, if we have a full session in the fall. And the Finance Minister has confirmed, Mr. Speaker, that this interpretation is completely correct. Now, you just don't

[ Page 465 ]

find bosses like that around very much.

The question I had, Mr. Speaker, is where is the provision in the budget for the extra $12,000? It isn't there. At least I can't find it.

And I'm getting a little worried because I saw what the Government did, Mr. Speaker, to several hundred Highways department workers when, according to the Government at any rate, their money wasn't in the budget. I wonder if we're all going to get fired or laid off. He will have to fire us too, you know. If I were a backbencher I'd want to find out about that one, Mr. Speaker, the matter of salaries for Members is only the first deceit of many in this budget. It's not a document detailing government spending intentions at all. It's simply a sham.

Before I go on, Mr. Speaker, to talk about specific areas of responsibility in the estimates, I'd like to commend the B.C. Liberal Party for its shadow budget that the Hon. First Member for Vancouver Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) delivered in the House the other day.

Over the years, listening at home in Langley, I've heard all kinds of things about the Liberal shadow budgets and I was most anxious to hear one at first hand. It was great fun for all of us, I'm sure — for the Liberals as well.

I don't blame the Liberals for wanting to have some fun since there's very little chance they'll ever have the opportunity to deliver a real budget. They might as well deliver their shadow budget year after year — it's like an extension, I suppose, of Older Boys' Parliament. (Laughter). The Liberal approach, Mr. Speaker, to budgeting is clearly discredited by the disastrous financial policies of the Liberal Government in Ottawa.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to look now specifically at some of the estimates in this disappointing budget.

Incidentally, I was pleased to hear, and interested to hear, the other evening the Hon. Member from channel 8, Mr. Bradbury, talking on the television about the race for cabinet positions. Perhaps some of those soon to be new cabinet Ministers can do something about making future budgets more open and more honest as they should be.

If we start under the Agriculture estimates, Mr. Speaker, the only significant point I suppose, except for the regular $4,000 increase for the Minister which is all over the estimates, is really the very slight increase in that total budget — certainly no provision for funds to provide any bold new programmes; definitely no money for compensation to farmers, although your Government has indicated all along that it planned to fairly compensate the farmer for any losses caused by your land use policy, or lack of it. But that money is not in the budget, Mr. Speaker.

The Attorney General's departmental estimates are pretty straightforward. It does appear that there's a hefty increase there in provision to provide for staff in the land registry offices. For that we can commend the budget for there was a desperate need to upgrade service in this department.

I would like to also commend the Attorney General for his comments about the high-powered sales campaign to sell often worthless land in Arizona to unsuspecting and quite often elderly British Columbians.

I might if I may, Mr. Speaker, suggest further to the Attorney General that perhaps even worse than those companies operating inside B.C. are those companies operating the same kind of programme by inviting British Columbians to come down to those tough steak dinners in Blaine or Sumas, Washington, or some other border town just outside the jurisdiction of British Columbia and Canadian law, and peddling their shabby bill of goods free of any control by us. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, since this new Government is on such fine terms with the State of Washington these days, the Attorney General might talk to his counterpart across the line to put an end to this land sharking.

And Ottawa should perhaps be advised as well, Mr. Speaker, to put a stop to the use of Canadian mails for what amounts to fraudulent purposes.

There isn't much to say, Mr. Speaker, about the estimates in the Department of Commercial Transport except that there might be a couple of million dollars available there for other purposes soon since the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) is going to kick all the trucks off the roads anyway.

Education is another matter however. And after all of these years of bitter criticism, Mr. Speaker, of the Social Credit money and input in other ways to education, what do we see in this new budget? A $45 million increase, which is peanuts — enough to look after salary increases and very little more, if anything.

This Government, Mr. Speaker, has portrayed itself as the champion of educators, yet its contribution in this budget is shameful.

The contribution to post-secondary education is close to an insult to B.C.'s three universities they've cut back capital funds, certainly. Seven million dollars extra in operating grants is an expression of contempt for the university community, especially, Mr. Speaker, from a Government which insisted when it was in Opposition that it would provide a better deal for B.C.'s universities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk just for a moment about independent schools. I'll admit that during the election campaign I took a fairly firm stand that while I was prepared to look, I couldn't approve at that time of financial assistance for independent schools. I have many of them in my constituency of all denominations.

But I have taken a second look, Mr. Speaker, and I now believe that the Government of British Columbia

[ Page 466 ]

must seriously consider sharing in the operating expenses of independent schools throughout this province.

I've also told those people who have written me to ask for support for independent schools that if the government supplies funds then the schools must, of course, be prepared to conform to provincial standards and must also be prepared to lose some of the independence that they now enjoy.

But these schools do fulfill a basic service in our community, Mr. Speaker, and I think we must recognize now that we must offer them some help.

I'm disturbed, Mr. Speaker, about the Education Minister's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) comments about family life and sex education in the school system. She says that she will encourage school boards to develop and experiment with programmes in these fields.

Well, I have an open mind about sex education in the schools but certainly there is ample evidence in the California experience that this matter can be a divisive force in the community. Certainly if school boards are allowed to experiment without any formula to follow, the community will be a victim rather than a beneficiary.

I know that this Government, Mr. Speaker, and the education Minister (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) are very high on experimentation and new approaches, but I would urge her to travel that road slowly. The B.C. School Trustees Association said some time ago, Mr. Speaker, in their official magazine, The B.C. School Trustee, that the innovation honeymoon is over, that excitement generated by new technology and techniques has died down, and that educators are taking a long hard look at what it has produced. In many instances, the results are unnerving.

The same editorial points to a number of examples and I'll use just one of them — the expensive and much-lauded Head Start programme in the United States, a programme that began in 1965 and was aimed at helping educationally deprived children from low income families.

The editorial says that a coast-to-coast survey showed that despite pouring $1 billion into the project, it was not working out. After five years of another expensive programme in New York City, the Board of Education concluded that no significant differences between students in schools with the programme and similarly situated students in schools without the programme could be found. In other areas, not only were there no significant differences to be found, but in some cases those students with the programme were in worse positions than they were before.

This editorial in The B.C. School Trustee, Mr. Speaker, adds that tests found an atmosphere of enthusiasm and interest and hope and a belief among staff members that they worked in a setting in which they could function. This led the editorial to conclude, and rightly so, that unfortunately, conditions which educators consider more conducive to teachers are not necessarily more conducive to learning.

I would like to say further, Mr. Speaker, that the editorial also stresses that it will not suggest, of course — nor do I — that innovations in education particularly be halted, or even those that don't have good initial results should necessarily be discontinued. But somewhere along the line we must develop means of careful and continuous evaluation and, above all, some clear-cut criteria prior to the introduction of any new programme.

That's all we ask, Mr. Speaker, through you to the education Minister, when we're setting up programmes of family life and sex education.

Mr. Speaker, it's the position of the Social Credit Party in this House that the reasons for the socialist Government's inability to move more quickly towards the elimination of the education tax from the land is unacceptable. The position of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) on this question is remarkable on a number of counts.

First of all, he indicates that he has problems because of a split in his cabinet on the matter of removing education tax from the land.

AN HON. MEMBER: No — no cabinet split.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, even that statement is a complete denial of the oath of secrecy that he took at Government House on Friday, September 15,1972.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker….

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Nonsense, absolute nonsense.

MR. McCLELLAND: Wait till you're in the cabinet before you comment, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to have a long wait.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the inflationary spiral which has grabbed hold of the assessment picture in B.C. falls particularly hard on those people over 65. We all recognize that. In many cases, it has already overridden those benefits which they now have from Mincome, Thirdly, the inflationary effects of the devaluation of the U.S. dollar are going to be increasingly felt in British Columbia in the next few months.

So, Mr. Speaker, without any kind of basic interruption in the bookkeeping procedures of the Department of Finance — which are already set up and already operating, with their relationship to

[ Page 467 ]

school districts throughout British Columbia — the homeowner grant, Mr. Speaker, could have been amended to simply state that the amount of the homeowner grant was the actual amount of the school tax levied against property held by those over 65 less $1. Very simple. So that the pioneers of our country could still retain a bona fide position as ratepayers and homeowners and continue to contribute as taxpayers their wisdom in the educational system.

It wouldn't have been a difficult legislative action, Mr. Speaker, to have taken at this session. It would have been a start. Certainly when the bill on the homeowner grant comes up for discussion in this House, the Social Credit Party will try to help your cabinet and your caucus make a move like this.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They'd fumble around with it for a year.

MR. McCLELLAND: It disturbs us, Mr. Speaker, that the growing indications coming from that side of the House are that even the simplest legislative programmes leave them baffled.

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the health Minister's (Hon. Mr. Cocke) remarks concerning new directions for health care in British Columbia. It's absolutely vital that we move into a programme of intermediate and preventative health care in this province just as quickly as possible, before the escalating costs of health care in British Columbia bury us under a grave of debt.

There is a good increase in this budget for the provision of more health inspectors. I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it's my opinion that these people have been the most overworked public servants in British Columbia for years. It's about time they got some help.

Before I forget, Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the health Minister's comments in the throne speech debate about his staff in general. I'd like to say that those with whom I've come in contact, and quite often in an emergency situation, have been extremely competent and extremely effective.

I'd like to suggest to the health Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the responsibility for inspecting rest homes be taken out of the hands of local public health inspectors. They have enough to do, inspecting restaurants and septic tanks and new subdivisions and swimming pools and answering a steady stream of complaints day after day after day. They have enough to do and they simply cannot keep up to it all. It's an impossible situation, particularly in what is quite often a short-staff situation.

The result often is that a substandard rest home continues to operate for a far longer period than should be allowed. It's my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that rest home inspection should be completely separate

from the other local public health inspection services. I have some other thoughts, Mr. Speaker, about rest home services which can be left to the detailed examination of the estimates.

Something else is really bothering me about this new Government, Mr. Speaker. The NDP has been preparing alternatives — at least so the party has been telling us — for many years. I wonder where they are in this budget. Why the need, for instance, for all of the surveys at this point? Commissions of enquiries? We're rapidly developing into government by survey, I'm afraid, and it's at an astronomical cost to the taxpayer.

While we're on the subject of health department estimates, the health security programme alone, Mr. Speaker, is costing taxpayers of British Columbia at least $118,000 a year and probably as much as $154,000 a year, and that's only to get the answers to questions which you said you already had.

If I may, I'd like to skip along to municipal affairs for a moment. One of the questions that I have and the people of British Columbia have is this: Where is your increased aid to local government? It certainly isn't in this budget.

B.C. municipalities who had expressed such optimism about this new Government must now be wondering whatever happened. Two dollars per capita, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Union of B.C. Municipalities calls it "crumbs off the table, a two-buck budget." No, it doesn't offer any hope for the struggling local levels of government, and those are the levels of government, Mr. Speaker, which need help the most but which have been denied.

Mr. Speaker, you've given the municipalities crumbs when what they really needed was a bigger slice of the loaf. You could have offered some relief from the burden of responsibility for welfare costs — the kind of burden, Mr. Speaker, that should rightly belong to the provincial and federal governments. Instead of that, you chose to ignore the needs.

I haven't been reading your budget speech because it certainly isn't in there. If it's true that municipalities are indeed children of the provincial government, Mr. Speaker, then this Government has abandoned its children and should now be forced to provide some kind of child care support.

I'd like to say a few words too about the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. I note with interest first that the estimated costs for the Minister's office have almost doubled, following, I guess, the already established pattern of this Government of expanding its bureaucracy. "Give all your friends good, cushy jobs at nice fat salaries" seems to be the direction of this Government.

I also note with interest, Mr. Speaker, that some $25 million extra — and that's over and above the additional money needed for Mincome — has been provided for social assistance. Once again, I thought

[ Page 468 ]

that this government had the answers that would lower the welfare rolls.

I'm really disturbed about the plans that the Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) has for all of this additional money. Will it go to the people where it's needed, or will it be used to continue setting up more arms of socialist bureaucracy?

The Minister's performance to date — his casual shut-down of the Willingdon School for Girls and his callous approach to the people involved in the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen — those actions have done nothing to instil any confidence in the minds of our citizens and particularly those who depend on him for their existence.

I would suggest to this Minister too, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he slow down on his plans to rush us headlong into state welfareism.

I'd like to commend to the Minister an interesting book which was recently drawn to my attention. It's called Welfare — Hidden Backlash. It's written by a great socialist, I'm told — Maurice C. Shumiatcher, who was for five years the assistant to the Premier of Saskatchewan at that time, the Rt. Hon. Rev. Tommy C. Douglas. Mr. Shumiatcher is also the author of, I'm told, the 1947 Saskatchewan Bill of Rights.

It's interesting that on the cover of this book the beaver is missing from the Canadian nickel. The beaver, of course, is a symbol of industry and enterprise in Canada, and there is no room in state socialism for industry and enterprise — I assume that's why the beaver is off the nickel.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Red flag? (Laughter).

If I could just make a few brief quotes from the book by Maurice C. Shumiatcher, he says:

"Government 'wardocracy' is not only economically expensive but it destroys personal incentive, removes vital areas of free choice, and dispossesses the individual of his position of pre-eminence in society. State aid is a crutch and those who rely upon it seldom ever learn to walk alone."

Another quote from the book:

"Personal freedom began to develop only when men rejected the status to which feudalism assigned them, and the idea of freely making contracts with each other allowed them to change and improve their condition. Welfareism and stateism, although supported by those who would raise men's standards of living, are in fact turning back the clock to a society in which freedom is disappearing and status is being reasserted so that the areas of free contract are fast disappearing."

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, two more short quotes — one for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly),
which says:

"Demands made upon the young, the weak and the deprived are more likely to secure a positive response than pity, money or institutional concern. Personal relationships in which the strong set examples of excellence are more likely to raise the levels of intellect and performance of the weak and deprived than laws and regulations, governmental departments and bureaucracies or the expenditure of millions in money."

One final quote, Mr. Speaker:

"Unquestionably there exists an obligation upon this generation to conserve our forests, husband our mineral wealth, maintain the beauty of our rivers and our lakes, and preserve the purity of our atmosphere in order that they may be enjoyed by generations yet unborn. Surely there exists no lesser obligation to those generations of Canadians who are to follow us to save them from the kind of national, economic debacle that built-in welfare schemes are as certain to produce in Canada tomorrow as the Beveridge Plan upon which they are based has already produced in the United Kingdom. The willful erosion of the economy by political programmes that promote inflation, debase the currency, compound the tax bite and saddle the public with an unconscionable burden of debt, has become a scandal that ought to concern the citizen as much as the depletion of natural resources, the pollution of air and water and the deterioration of cities."

And that, Mr. Speaker, from a socialist, Maurice C. Shumiatcher.

I'd like to ask a couple of questions, Mr. Speaker, about Hansard and its provisions in the budget. I know that this new Government championed the introduction of Hansard and for that I commend the Government. But I wonder why we don't want the people to read it? The subscription price for Hansard, Mr. Speaker, is far too high. Rather than being an encouragement for people to get involved — however vicariously — through the reading of verbatim accounts of this House, the $15 subscription fee is instead a deterrent in my opinion to Hansard's wide distribution.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why MLA's cannot be given the same consideration of free distribution for Hansard as we are for the Votes and Proceedings and the orders of the day. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, Hansard is already heavily subsidized and it's a service worth subsidization — but only if it can be made a …

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): If it won't sell, they might as well give it away. (Laughter).

[ Page 469 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'd be for that. Give it away and let the people read it.

I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that this is a deceitful budget, because of the things that it doesn't tell us about.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, it's not customary, when you are dealing with a speech of any other Member, to label it "deceitful". I assume that you don't mean that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is deceitful for something he didn't put in.

MR. McCLELLAND: Your presumption is correct. Thank you.

It seems to be deceitful though, Mr. Speaker, for its implied threats — thank you, Mr. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), for teaching me that one (Laughter) — to so many of our corporate groups within our economy. It is certainly cynical, because it indicates no increase in individual taxes while, at the same time, initiating increases that ultimately strike out at the modest wage earner, just as surely as a personal income tax boost.

It appears to be deceitful for its implied threats to the future of the perpetual funds established by the Social Credit government. My advice in this area, Mr. Speaker, is not to tinker with those funds. For they may be the only thing that will save you from financial chaos after you get finished tinkering with the rest of the economy.

The budget appears to be deceitful, Mr. Speaker, because of its statements regarding the state of finance in British Columbia under the Social Credit administration. Two sets of books, it says.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): On a point of order, the Hon. Member can't say indirectly what he can't say directly …"seems to be deceitful". He might as well say "deceitful" and then be ruled out of order.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I've let it go several times, because of the fact that he's a new Member. But it is not the practice to try to attribute to other Members of the House deceit or cynicism. If it's something that you would resent being said about you, then you feel exactly the same to the other Hon. Member to whom you attribute anything in the way of deceit or cynicism.

MR. McCLELLAND: Do you have a word I could use in place of it, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm barred from making speeches, unfortunately. Thank you. (Laughter).

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you for your and the Attorney General's comments, Mr. Speaker.

There is a vacuum in this budget speech however, Mr. Speaker, in its comments about the state of finance in British Columbia under the Social Credit administration; its comments about two sets of books and double bookkeeping; and "wait until the Socreds are out of office and we'll see how they cooked the books."

Well, Mr. Speaker, there has been over $500 million left from that same administration and you've had, on the other side of the House, five months to prove that the Socred claim to sound fiscal management was untrue. But you haven't been able to prove it and you won't be able to prove it. And you know it.

Some on the other side of the House are trying to explain away the success of the Socred administration by saying that it's been just lucky that the Social Credit administration's term of office coincided with the good times and the great natural wealth of British Columbia. But you forget to mention that no other province in Canada is in such a sound financial position.

It took good Social Credit government management to bring British Columbia to the financial position that it enjoys today. And it took something else, Mr. Speaker. It took the initiative and the enterprise of its people.

Sometimes, in our preoccupation with the details of this budget presented by the new Government, we disregard the very system that made it possible for the success of the Social Credit government to leave over $500 million to make even this budget a possibility. The individual enterprise system. The very system, Mr. Speaker, that has enabled this socialist Government to be "Saturday night rich" in the past five months.

I'm a strong believer, Mr. Speaker, in the individual enterprise system. Not because of any equations we might make with motherhood but because it's the most effective and efficient system of getting products and services to the most people.

In British Columbia we enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, in an economy whose total success is predicated on the productivity of our people, the confidence of our investors, and the concept that as you serve people better you are successful in the individual enterprise system.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of individual enterprise is under attack. In this province, according to the socialists, profit is a dirty word and that is nonsense. Business and private enterprisers and industry, Mr. Speaker, are being blamed every day in this House for many of the things that they are not responsible for. At the same time are given very little credit if any for the things that they have done, and done very well.

[ Page 470 ]

In pushing the state control philosophy we find that the socialists have to discredit any organization or group that makes a profit even when much of that profit is interpreted into taxes to serve our people better. The socialists seem to have a need, perhaps a commitment, to attack the integrity of the so-called Establishment.

I wonder who the Establishment is? Well, a brief reference to Statistics Canada's latest figures in British Columbia show that in the manufacturing industries alone — and that is 47 per cent of the industries in British Columbia — 50 per cent of the jobs created fall in the category represented by manufacturing concerns having less than 200 employees, Mr. Speaker. And of those nearly 30,000 fall in the manufacturing firms having between 5 and 49 employees. Now is that the Establishment? The shoe repair shop, the little machine shop and the small orchardist, the hardworking farmer and the little retail businessman?

In attacking this so-called Establishment, Mr. Speaker, the socialists attempt to divide the people with mistrust and resentment for each other. Individual enterprise, Mr. Speaker, has been proven far more successful in producing a decent standard of living for the most people than any government monopoly.

The speech, Mr. Speaker, leaves a vacuum as well in that it deliberately hides from the people of British Columbia just how far down that road to state socialism we have already travelled and how far we might be going. For example, this Government is committed to changing the Revenue Act of the province to allow B.C. to invest in the capital stock of any corporation where previously such investment was restricted to debentures.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you are not allowed to anticipate debate on that question. Do you wish to go on to something else?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it is not for one Member of the House to dictate policy of the House. It is for the House itself and the rules of the House — and before the House debates the matter I would ask the Member to ask the leave of the House. If that is the way you want to conduct the rules of debate, you do it by leave of the House. If any Member objects to rules being ignored then that Member can 'put his objection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I only went by the comments of the leader of this Government that he would allow full debate in the House even though those bills were being tabled. I took that in good faith and I wanted only to mention….

MR. SPEAKER: I still am here. My duty, as you know, is to observe the rules.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to mention it briefly. May I ask for leave, then, to mention it briefly?

MR. SPEAKER: May he have leave to refer to a matter already on the order paper?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. SPEAKER: Apparently not everybody is in agreement. Every Member is equal in the House and they can say "yes" or "no" as they please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this Government seems committed, through he financial policies of the Government and the Finance Minister, to squandering public funds in failing Government enterprises in this province and perhaps in Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well.

I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the order of buses from the Western Flyer Company of Winnipeg is only he first step. I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, what the real reason was for these buses being ordered from a Crown corporation in Manitoba without any public tender. The real reason.

The real reason, Mr. Speaker, for not horsing around with tenders, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) so quaintly put it, is that somebody was almost certain to underbid that company. This Government, Mr. Speaker, was committed to shoring up a sagging socialist enterprise in Manitoba — a socialist enterprise, Mr. Speaker, that cost $500,000 in 1971 and was probably in much worse shape in 1972. Fortunately for Western Flyer, Mr. Speaker, they found a sugar daddy in the Minister of Municipal Affairs in this Government of British Columbia. Shoring up a sagging socialist enterprise in Manitoba to provide new jobs for Manitoba workers while including not one real measure in the budget for providing jobs for British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I could understand the socialist obsession with getting their hands on private enterprises if there was any record of success, anywhere, with which to relate this obsession. But contrary to that the record shows only a very long history of waste and incompetence, as Crown corporations first in Saskatchewan, more recently in Manitoba, have been a blueprint for failure.

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia want to know where the hordes from the north are leading us.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're riding a pale horse.

MR. McCLELLAND: We cannot look at the

[ Page 471 ]

budget, Mr. Speaker, because it doesn't shown us anything.

Perhaps we could listen to the backbenchers. The Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), Mr. Speaker, says we need to abolish private ownership of land. The Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) says he is going to move people out of our cities and send them somewhere else to live. Well, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Member, you are not going to tell me where I can live in British Columbia and where I cannot live.

Mr. Speaker, I tell the members of the public they should listen to the Members of the New Democratic Party to find out the real truth. To find out what isn't indicated in this budget. It has been said before that the Members have already told their Government that they want some action. They want their Government to take over everything from B.C. Tel to MacMillan Bloedel and from the corner gas station to the local movie theatre.

In Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, this dabbling in private enterprise has left that province with a sick economy and a depleted population and the record shows just that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they say in their budget? They said they were going to help bring population here!

MR. McCLELLAND: In Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, citizens now pay the highest rates of income tax in Canada and are embarked on a clearcut programme to drive private enterprise out of the economic life of that province. In the NDP Manitoba manifesto, proposals are made to enter into every kind of business from the manufacture of baby food to soap, and the operation of everything from hotels to used car lots. I have a great fear, Mr. Speaker, that when we finally get these buses from Manitoba they will only run in socialist-held ridings.

AN HON. MEMBER: On co-op gas.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, Lord help us. Lord help us from socialist enterprise, Mr. Speaker.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a few moments about promises — especially promises made in election campaigns. I chose at random a brochure listed by the now Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the now Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) and other exotic departments, and profitable departments, Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign just past. It is a handsome brochure, Mr. Speaker, and it proudly promises a new deal for the people in British Columbia.

In it the candidates promised "car insurance at cost" and they indicate that this means less than $25 per year. Where does it say anything about that in the budget? Where does it say anything about car insurance at cost in this budget brought down by this Government of British Columbia? Nowhere, Mr. Speaker.

More jobs says the brochure. The NDP, it says, believes that a job is not a privilege but a right. We believe that, but where is the provision to fulfill that promise in this budget — nowhere, Mr. Speaker, nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that events have proved those promises to be hollow, just as events will prove this budget speech to be hollow. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Attaboy!

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your chamber is so popular that it is impossible at the 2 o'clock beginning to have in the galleries all those people who wish to view what takes place here. As a result, I would like to take the opportunity, on behalf of the two Members for Vancouver–Point Grey (Messrs. McGeer and Gardom) to welcome the boys from St. George's School who are here and who have come in just lately.

They attend a school of long standing in this province, offering university entrance courses. They qualify in every way for the assistance that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) just indicated that this Government should give, and which has been part of the policy of the Liberal Party for a decade.

Mr. Speaker, I think I gather from the remarks of the Hon. Member for Langley that he is opposed to the budget. I was never quite sure. (Laughter). He delivered his remarks well and his associates were well rehearsed in the right places to applaud. But when he was complaining about a budget that didn't have anything for employment and didn't have anything for this and didn't have anything for that, I thought that maybe he had been reading last year's budget.

As a matter of fact, as I read the budget speech this year, I thought that if we have a new script writer he must have read very carefully the old speeches, because we have the same confusions here as before. For the official Opposition to criticize this budget means that they are obviously criticizing the style that the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) grew to use so well.

Indeed, I think it's becoming increasingly difficult for Members on the Government side to really, honestly support this budget. I notice that the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), when he made his remarks on Monday, began with the very simple statement, clear, unequivocal: "Mr. Speaker, this is a good budget and I intend to support it." I

[ Page 472 ]

notice that Hansard records that it was followed by laughter. Obviously even the Members of his own party didn't believe what he was saying.

I find that after speaking at some length and dealing not one whit with any of the budgetary matters, he concluded with exactly the same words. So obviously, it's kind of like a Chinese meal — you have to keep reminding yourself how good it is. If you keep saying it often enough you'll eventually get the message.

Before turning to the budget matters themselves, I want to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a matter which flows from remarks made by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Ms. Young) yesterday, and the statement made by the Hon. Premier at the opening of the sitting this afternoon.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, in expressing her concern and giving her view as to the effect which the recent international currency revaluations might have upon this country and this province, suggested that it was her hope and, from those people in positions of knowledge of whom she had read, their belief that the Canadian dollar would float upwards or downwards with the American dollar — maybe within one or five points.

I would just like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that for every variation of one point between the Canadian and the American dollar, our principal industry in this province, the forest industry, suffers a loss of $15 million.

Therefore, if we're to deal with money so casually on just a one or five point difference, you realize that one industry in this province can sustain, at current market rates, revenue losses of between $15 million and $75 million.

This is not an insignificant amount for the economy of a province such as ours, even though our budget is approaching $1.8 billion.

Therefore, we can't treat too lightly the problem which faces our American friends; a problem which will only be solved, at the best temporarily, by the currency revaluation that has taken place in the last few days.

I think that we must be specifically concerned about this aspect — that the revaluation is only a temporary measure and that the United States of America, if it is to maintain its position in the world economy, will be obliged to take other steps. It is those other steps which should be of the greatest concern to Canada, British Columbia in particular.

We don't know what they are. It has been suggested import duties, restrictions on imports — all things which harbour unsatisfactory results for us.

The Premier of this province today has suggested that the Prime Minister of Canada should join with him in making approaches to the President of the United States concerning matters related to the petroleum energy resource. This is such a sensitive matter that I hope the Hon. Premier, appreciating the position in which we find ourselves with regard to international trade, will recognize this before he goes too far.

It should be clear, and every Member of this assembly should appreciate, that the United States of America is the largest single user of petroleum products in the world. They should also recognize that as of today the U.S. net production of petroleum resources within their own country falls short by 20 per cent of their requirements. They should also recognize that it is forecast that by 1985 the United States' demand will exceed its own production by 60 per cent.

Even though we might wish to see our American cousins alter their life style in such a way as to decrease the demand for petroleum resources, it is almost impossible to expect that they would adhere to the extent of reducing the demand by 60 per cent of their needs.

Therefore, they are placed in the position where, in order to supply their petroleum and hydrocarbon energy resource requirements, they must depend upon foreign sources. While we're in a position to supply a minimal amount of what their requirement may be, principally their petroleum crude requirements will come from Saudi Arabia and South American countries.

Those countries, appreciating the control that they have over this particular resource, have already begun to increase the price. Therefore, we see the position in which the President of the United States and his advisors find themselves today.

When we make moves in this province and through our federal government to interfere with the realization by the United States of the fullest benefit of oil production within its own territories, we must appreciate how serious those implications would be for the Americans if they were to give in to some of our suggestions.

My worry is today, and it has always been, that unless we deal sensitively with this problem, we will not be able to succeed in stopping the transportation of oil along our coastline — and of greater concern, through the narrow straits to the south of us — unless we are forced into a position by the United States of America where we are obliged to give some other thing in return.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier and to the Members, before we move too precipitously in the approach to some of these problems and their solutions, let us be quite certain of the strength of the person with whom we must deal, and of some of the demands which the Americans might wish to make upon us as a quid pro quo for giving in to some of our desires.

We have had debates in this House and Members of the Official Opposition, as they are now, and Members of the Government, have stood up and said there

[ Page 473 ]

are certain things we will not give the Americans. One of them is water. But they still need it. All I say is, not to give it to them, but just remember how badly they need some of the things that we have to give. Before we start dealing too quickly with them, let's count what the cost may really be.

I'm glad the Member raised this. You know the Government of the Province of British Columbia, the previous government and this Government, has ignored this problem of shipment of oil by tankers along our coast, consistently. We have never had the opportunity in this House of discussing this matter. We have never had the opportunity in any committee of this House of bringing before that committee people who really understand the problem.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, if the Member wishes to know, that what the Government of this province should be doing is permitting the Members of this House to understand all the complexities of the oil situation as it affects us and the United States of America. When we have those facts before us, then perhaps we can make the decisions which this Government should make. That's the way this assembly should function. I'll have more to say about that later in these remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). In the course of his remarks he mentioned the provincial court system, and the changes that have already taken place under the administration of this Government in the operation of the provincial courts. Also, I welcome his remarks, his suggestions, that steps are being taken to ensure that the judges in the provincial courts, more and more of them are legally trained.

But I wonder if the Attorney General would also consider that while it is desirable that a judge have some understanding of the law, some clear understanding of the law and a comprehension of its intricacies, that it is perhaps more desirable that a person who sits upon the bench of the provincial court should possess qualities of wisdom and compassion which would improve the judgments which might be rendered. I'm sure the Hon. Attorney General would agree with me that legal training alone does not necessarily give a person those qualities which would improve his judgment and therefore the justice which is dispensed through the provincial court system.

I would hope that it would be possible in those areas where we have men of wisdom, of deep experience and perhaps some shortcomings so far as legal training is concerned, to train them better in the letter of the law, but not replace them — rather to retain them for the quality of the judgment that they already possess. I don't think that any member of the legal profession would claim that his training alone makes him best suited to sit in judgment upon those who come before him.

I also think that it might be wise when making the same examination, if the Attorney General or the Chief Justice of the provincial court system might seriously look at those members of the court who have legal training, but do not have the qualities of which I speak. And there are some.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's the solution there?

MR. WILLIAMS: Replace them.

I don't want to say any more about that, Mr. Speaker, but I just think it should be looked at very carefully because from my experience, and I know that other members of the profession have experienced that there are some judges who just aren't that good, and we may have to deal….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Should I have the power to replace them?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I think your Chief Justice could very carefully look at that and decide what needs to be done in certain circumstances.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: No it's not. It is an attempt, Mr. Speaker — for the Hon. Lady Member if she would understand — only to improve the calibre of justice that is administered by the courts. You improve it two ways. You improve it by bringing good men to it. You improve it by taking those away who are not good.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh well, the law's our responsibility and if we can't improve it then some other people will tell us about that at some other time.

However, I'm not going to write the legislation for the Hon. Attorney General, he's capable of doing that. He can have assistance from the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

But I do want to raise one matter which deals with the matter of justice with the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is not here. Because I am concerned that there is going on in this province today, at this very moment indeed, discussions which indicate a serious transgression of the law by one of our major unions in this province. I speak of the International Woodworkers of America. I trust the Hon. Attorney General will concern himself with this because it would appear that actions have been taken by that union, or one of the locals of that union, which are illegal under the laws of the province and indeed may be in breach of the Criminal Code. The section I refer to is one dealing with intimidation.

[ Page 474 ]

Mr. Speaker, the IWA, Local 185 at Port Alberni, on January 10 sent out to people who were engaged in sections of the logging industry in this Province the following letter, by registered mail:

"Please find enclosed, three copies of a memorandum of agreement between yourself and Local 185 of the IWA. Would you please sign them and return two to our office.

The reason for this procedure is that it has been brought to our attention that the owner-operators are usually found to be working on or with the various pieces of equipment they have purchased.

Needless to say, we do not intend to force these operators to join the IWA, but we feel that some type of permit system must be established. I understand that when a man purchases a piece of equipment it may not be economically feasible for him to place another person on it, but rather must operate the equipment himself. This memorandum is designed to accomplish this end.

Upon receipt of the two signed memorandums into our office, we will send you a permit card and a sticker for your vehicle.

If you desire more information on this matter, please feel free to contact me in my office at any time.

(Signed)

F.L. Larson, Second Vice President."

The memorandum of agreement, Mr. Speaker, already signed by the local of the IWA and sent to the person to whom this letter was sent reads as follows:

1. The owner-operator shall abide by all conditions as outlined in the current Coast Master Agreement.
2. The owner-operator shall abide by all current conditions and agreements as established between the local union and the parent company.
3. The owner-operator shall pay to the local union each month the amount established by the local union.
4. In no case shall the amount exceed one month union dues as established by the local union.
5. This agreement shall allow the owner-operator to work within the jurisdiction boundaries of the local union.

This memorandum of agreement has now been changed slightly by the IWA, and what they are now asking these owner-operators to sign is one which has suggested that they must join the IWA. This is against the law of this province.

The people to whom this letter has been addressed are independent contractors who have fought for years with the preceding government and with the holders of the tree farm licences to ensure their right to continue to operate within the contract clause of the tree farm licences.

This matter has been dealt with, Mr. Speaker, year after year by the Select Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries of this House. Year after year, the 30 — 50 contract clause in the timber farm licences has steadily been improved to ensure that these independent operators could continue to carry on their business in the locality which they wished.

Last year representations were made by the International Woodworkers of America to the Select Standing Committee in order to force these operators to join the IWA. The situation was fully canvassed and the report in the Journals of 1972 indicates clearly that the Select Standing Committee on Forestry without exception — and they were members of the government party on that committee — rejected that suggestion and allowed the independent contractors to carry on without being obliged to subject themselves to the union agreement to which the TFL holder was subject.

Now out of the blue, on January 10, 1972, this union, without any dispute, without any right to unionize these independent operators, sends a letter saying — in British Columbia if you please, Mr. Speaker — sign this agreement and we'll give you a permit to go to work within this local jurisdiction.

And what is the threat? Here the Attorney General should take note. The threat has been made to the owner of the TFL that if these operators do not sign these agreements, they're going to close down the operations in Port Alberni. And that's intimidation.

Meetings have been going on yesterday and are still going on today dealing with this particular matter.

The big company, MacMillan and Bloedel, which for its own reasons might be happy to see the 30 — 50 contract clause struck out of the TFL licence, has suggested to the independent operators, "Well, I guess you're going to have to sign or we're going to have to cancel our contract with you." More pressure upon these independent owner-operators who have their own pieces of equipment and are under the laws of this province, entitled to operate within the tree farm licences.

I thought the day would never come when in British Columbia we would have to get a work permit from our government, and I certainly never believed that we would be in a position where we'd have to get a work permit from a union to which you do not belong, and to which under the laws you need not belong. The IWA know it's illegal.

I say to the Attorney General now that I ask him to investigate this case — to determine whether there has been a breach of the statutes of this province or indeed, whether there has been a breach of the Criminal Code — and to take the appropriate action as the circumstances might required.

Mr. Speaker, returning to the budget.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) in the course of his remarks saw fit to criticize the Liberal budget presented to the House on Monday by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

[ Page 475 ]

(Mr. McGeer). But the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) should appreciate that the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is one of the few Members in this House who has taken the time to study and understand the budgeting system of the previous government. It is sorry for him, as it is for me, to see the present Government copying the same technique.

The Member for Langley talked about the "Liberal shadow budget." He didn't listen to what the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey said. The Liberal Member did not talk of the budget that he proposed for expenditures and revenues in this province as being more realistic than the one we have before us. When he spoke of a "shadow budget" the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey was talking about the number of dollars within the control of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Treasury benches which none of us in this House ever have an opportunity of seeing, of debating or of querying. That's the shadow budget.

Even the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — at some time someone suggested that he might be the Minister of Finance of the province — he doesn't understand it either.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: If the Minister would just listen then he too will learn what the shadow budget of this province is.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Stop making a shadow speech.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a shadow budget — $2 billion under the control of the Minister of Finance that we never even get a chance to look at in this House until after the event.

This is a budget we're talking about. You let the Members look at some expenditures totaling $1.7 billion but you don't let the Members of this House discuss how you're going to deal with $2 billion that that man has in his hands.

There's nothing in the estimate book showing the revenues that come from the trusteed funds in the hands of the Minister of Finance, Indeed, it is not until after the event that we find, as you will on page 10 of the budget, how much of those moneys were expended in the previous year by the Minister of Finance.

It's right there: $126 million for the B.C. Hydro, $60 million for B.C. Rail, $55 million for the British Columbia School Districts Capital Financing Authority, and $21.5 million for the British Columbia Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority. No opportunity to discuss those expenditures in this House or in a committee of this House before they're made — not one opportunity.

No opportunity to find out in advance what the projections are by the Minister of Finance with regard to the revenues from the trust funds in his hands. There was a question answered yesterday by the Hon. Minister of Finance in response to a question posed by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I urge all the Members to look at the documents tabled and see the kind of money that the Minister of Finance has in his control which we never see at all, about which we never get the chance to debate, to question, to dig.

That's the shadow budget — a bigger budget than was brought down here last Friday, more money in his possession. I don't deny that the sources are definable. We can find them out after the event. No question as to where the money is expected to go, under the laws of this province; but we are not able to question as to whether they do go; what happens to any unexpended moneys which might be re-capitalized; to understand the forecasts of expenditure. That's what this budget is all about — we're forecasting our revenues, or attempting to; we're forecasting our expenditures, or attempting to.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that if this is the open Government — the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) when he sat about here, used to talk about the sunshine that would be let in — and I say that if we're to have that, then bring all of the fiscal matters before this House or a committee of this House and let us look at it. Let us not see bills that have been on the orders of this House before, where we are going to spend $500 million or permit the Crown corporations to borrow that kind of money without knowing what it is for. Not one word as to what the expenditure was for.

Mr. Speaker, these moneys that the Minister of Finance controls are largely made available to these same Crown corporations. I say the time has come for this open Government to let the sunshine in and to stop the sham of the Crown corporations being able to do as they wish and let us look at their budgets. How much, I ask, will the British Columbia Railway earn in revenues next year? What is their forecast? The president sits over there, the chief executive officer sits there. Why don't we know how much they propose to earn in revenues next year? We're the board of directors and the people of the Province of British Columbia are the shareholders. You look at the Companies Act, I say to the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). Look under the Companies bill. See the kind of obligations that the directors of a corporation have to their shareholders. If we're the directors here and the president sits over there and we can't tell the people of the Province of British Columbia, who are the shareholders of that railway, how much revenue we're going to get and how we're going to spend it — then we're in bad shape as directors. That's all I'm asking.

That's all that we've ever asked. Let's see how much we're going to earn. Let's not be given some

[ Page 476 ]

time later in the year the so-called financial statements of the British Columbia Railway which shows profit and all kinds of surpluses and liabilities and so on, and profit. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there isn't any profit in the operation of that railroad. But we will never really know until we get a chance to sit down and look into the fiscal affairs of that Crown corporation.

The same with B.C. Hydro.

It will be a fantastic job. But it's one that will challenge the abilities of each of the Members of this House. It is our obligation to fulfill those responsibilities; to meet that challenge, to be able to go out to our constituents and say, "Yes, we've looked into the operations of the Crown corporations. We are satisfied that they are doing the job for the people of British Columbia that they are expected to do." There isn't one Member of this House today who could say that to a constituent because he just doesn't know.

MR. LAUK: Weren't the reports filed?

MR. WILLIAMS: The reports that were filed in this House don't show that information. You don't get anything except the bare financial statement. Again, the Second Member for Vancouver Centre knows that to look at the bare financial statement of a company does not give him the answers that he would want to ask with regard to forecast revenues and expenditures. I'm not suggesting something which is novel. Let's take a comparison — the Canadian National Railway, owned by the people of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada isn't the president, however. But the senior officials of CN are obliged by law every year to go before a committee of the parliament of Canada and to answer extensive questions into the performance of that railway during the preceding year and to answer for the budget that they expect to spend in the following year.

Mr. Speaker, not only do they have to go before this committee. There is a special edition of Hansard — you can go to the library and get it — which just deals with the proceedings of that committee.

Why doesn't the B.C. Rail come to the same thing with us? We've got the committee rooms. Why don't they come with their people and let's ask the questions. Let's see their budget in as much detail as the budget of this Government. You've seen the votes. We want to see the details of the budgets for the British Columbia Railway and British Columbia Hydro on the same basis. Then we know where we're going in this province.

We can then justify the kind of moneys that they get from the people of British Columbia. It's $126 million for British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority, which the budget document says was invested at market rates from internal investment funds available to the province.

Then we can also test one other very important word. Were those trusteed funds in the hands of the Minister of Finance, were they in fact invested at market rates? Is B.C. Hydro paying its way? What are these trusteed funds — the teachers' superannuation fund? The B.C. Railway employees superannuation fund? The municipal employees' superannuation fund? Those are the funds we're talking about and those people who are the beneficiaries of those funds. We've got a responsibility to know that they were in the hands of B.C. Hydro at market rates, because it is the market rate return on those investments which gives us the opportunity to provide the benefits for superannuation to those people who every month have it taken off their pay cheques. That's the measure of our responsibility and yet it doesn't happen.

I'll give you another example of a similar problem. When I spoke earlier in the throne speech debate I raised a question of the British Columbia Railway's proposed port development in Howe Sound. I'm not going to go into that again except to say this. Following my remarks, the Hon. Premier suggested that such an authority as I proposed would result in, "Can you imagine the bureaucracy."

Well, I just say to the Hon. Premier, because he is here, that if he would look into the bureaucracy that exists in the Canadian National Railway, the British Columbia Railway, National Harbours Board, Fraser River Harbour Commission, City of Vancouver and realize that they are all fighting about port development rather than working together. I would suggest to him that the single port authority for British Columbia I propose would have a much less bureaucratic colour to it.

Anyway, the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is here and I want to assure him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not dealing with the question as to whether there should or should not be a port in Prince Rupert at this particular time. That's a decision that others will need to take.

But with regard to the economics of coal via Britannia Beach and coal via Prince Rupert, there are people in this province who have considerable expertise in matters of the economics of transportation and they are in a position to come before this House or a committee of this House and tell us what the score is.

I have a letter from one of them and I won't name him, but I'll be happy to let any of the Members see this letter. He advises me that the distance from the coal fields at Sukunka to Prince Rupert is about 35 miles longer than it is to Britannia.

But he goes on to say: "Mileage in this case isn't the critical factor. The principle factors by which one judges the efficiency of a railroad route are the alignment, the gradient, and condition of the track."

Now there are some questions to be asked about that because the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon.

[ Page 477 ]

Mr. Hartley), when he sat on that side of the House just one year ago, brought in sections of the railway ties from the British Columbia Railway which were rotten and he questioned the stability of that railroad. Now, you know, he raised it and I have a question: I want to know how many derailments there have been on this…We'll have coal from Sukunka to wherever we carry it. That's one of the questions to be answered.

But it also appears that with regard to the handling of the coal volumes predicted by B.C. Railway, British Columbia Railway would need four sets of unit train. Canadian National could do it with three. The number of cars per train: 65 on the B.C. Railway because of tile condition of its rails; 85 on the CNR. Total cars: 260 for the: B.C. Rail; 255 for the Canadian National — five difference. The number of locomotives: 17 locomotives for the British Columbia Railway; 10 for the CNR to carry the same quantity of coal.

Now, locomotives of 3,000 horsepower required for this job are a bit expensive and so are the trains, but the cost to the British Columbia Railway for its equipment would appear to be about $11,600,000 for cars and locomotives. The Canadian National cost would be $9,400,000.

In calculations made by this man who I know is a transportation economist indicates that the shipment of coal via Prince Rupert rather than Britannia Beach would have an advantage of between 75 cents and one dollar a ton to the person that moves the coal. It means that from the coal mine to its eventual destination we can cut out between 75 cents and a dollar a ton — if we go by Prince Rupert rather than going by Britannia Beach.

This man is a transportation economist, he has written to me, he has no axe to grind in the matter. But we, Mr. Speaker, are the ones who have got to make some decisions in the matter.

Now, I'm sure if you go and ask the officials of the British Columbia Railway which is the best route, they would say, not unnaturally, the B.C. Railway is the best route. If you were to go and ask the officials of the Canadian National Railway which is the best route, they would say the Canadian National Railway is the best route. I suppose that if the CPR could get in the act and we went and asked them, they would be able to assure us that the CPR was the best way in which to move the coal.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so.

And therefore, Mr. Speaker, all I'm suggesting is that since the decision is to be made by this government, that it should be made on the basis of facts — not from the B.C. Railway, not from the CNR, not from the CPR — but from facts given by independent people who can make an assessment without the personal interest that may result if you talk to the officials of any one of these organizations.

The place where these transportation economists, engineers, railway operators should be asked is before a committee of this House. It is on that basis that we get the information — the input for the kind of discussion that has been taking place and will in the future take place here.

That brings me finally to the last matter which stems from this same problem — that is the extent to which the Members of this House are employed. There has been a lot of discussion about how much everybody is going to be paid and whether there is going to be one session a year or two sessions a year. I just suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Members of this House will find a very great difficulty in justifying the salary increases that are suggested in the budget speech if we are to continue to function as have for this past two or three weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. WILLIAMS: The control of this assembly rests with the House Leader. They wonder when we're going to have the committees which were announced a few days ago and all of which now have chairmen and secretaries and when those committees are going to be energized by the Government presenting motions before this House sending those committees into action.

When are we going to get to have legislation before us that this House must attend to? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Government should have delayed the opening of this session for about 10 days until they got themselves ready with their programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: Worse than working to rule.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. Well, we're working to rule. I suppose this is one of the things that we inherit from the kind of Government that we now have. They understand the work to rule. I can remember in previous sessions they used to be screaming about "legislation by exhaustion".

MRS. JORDAN: Now it's legislation by boredom.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's right. I thank the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) for her best contribution she has made to the debates in this House in all the time I've been here. (Laughter). "Legislation by boredom". Or legislation by attrition, one or the other, Mr. Speaker. I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, because you're a man of humour and good judgment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr.

[ Page 478 ]

Speaker, I take pleasure in rising in this debate on motion of supply. I must say that I was quite impressed and quite moved by the address of the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) yesterday.

I, too, at one time started out teaching and for lack of other things and perhaps out of frustration and one thing and another, embarked briefly upon a course of the use of corporal punishment. I can't say that I was dissuaded by the size of my students, but in reflecting and especially looking back over 10 years and knowing some of these people as adults, I can see where it might have done some harm; I certainly don't see where it could have done any good.

I believe that where one cannot give physical love, and for obvious reasons that is barred from the classroom… I refer to my own family in which I think perhaps I would give physical affection to the children in my own family. I might there consider giving some physical reproof, but certainly in the classroom when there can be no physical affection there can be no physical reproof.

It is very nice to hear such a philosophy enunciated. I recall that the person who first put those thoughts into my mind, Dr. Jack Regal, a clinical psychologist who laboured a few years at the University of British Columbia, left the Province of British Columbia because of the little-red-schoolhouse philosophy that had prevailed in those years. It is very good to hear a philosophy of this type enunciated by perhaps the head educator of the Province of British Columbia.

It is also, of course, very necessary to consider some of the more detailed aspects of education in implementing that philosophy. I might say that something as mundane as education finance is still playing a rather negative role in our educational climate.

It seems that in education we must always move ahead and change, change, change. We can never turn back the clock if we have made a mistake and hope that is going to change. I think that we should turn back the clock in one respect — in education finance.

I think that treating the school districts of this province as average districts is a very poor way of handling it. Now we are adjusting to this a little bit. We are recognizing that certain districts experience winter temperatures of 40 below, and I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) mention the changes in financing for school buses. Certain school districts attract young school staffs; others have older school staff. It seems that we expect a blanket type of finance formula, an average type of finance formula, to finance educational costs throughout the province. In this respect I would urge a serious reconsideration of a return to a system in which the teacher salary portion or a part thereof of a school's educational budget reflects both the qualifications and the experience of the teaching staff as it did prior to 1968.

I have seen some incidents which I don't like to believe but which could almost seem to appear to be a tendency to try to force out older teachers, who have got extremely good academic records and who up until 1968 were getting good superintendents' reports. It could be that because of stringent educational formulas there is a tendency to try and get rid of these people. I know that I have certainly had it admitted to me quite openly by several people in school boards — and superintendents in the department — that it would appear to be desirable to simply hire teachers with no experience. It is even referred to as, well, "How are you going to spend your money — on teachers' salaries or something else?" I think there is perhaps a little bit of virtue in that thinking, but it is certainly very dangerous.

So I would like to see a weighted factor, at least, in any education finance formula which would take into account the amount of experience and the amount of qualification or certification of the teachers on any particular school staff.

I believe that it is very important to have young vibrant new people coming into the teaching staff every year. It is also necessary to maintain a good solid foundation of experienced teachers, and the two tend to work in harmony. They can complement each other. I am very much indebted to some of my mentors in education. Yet I hope that when I was a younger teacher I helped to bring a few new ideas to them and that we could share and grow in this together.

I think too that in looking at our philosophy of education it is very important to wonder just what we are trying to do, particularly at the secondary school level. I have often proposed — and it was not too well received by some of my classes — that we should perhaps have schools open and classes in session not continuously but from 8:30 in the morning until 5:30 at night. Perhaps we should close the schools down or let students take a year's leave of absence or something in their high school years.

But when we are in school I think that is what we should be there for. I have had cases of dropouts in our school system — good young people who showed a lot of promise in Grade 10. They turn 16 or 17 and they get a job at Canada Safeway, Super-Valu or some service station. I am not singling out any one place for blame, but these people have worked 40 hours a week and in some cases working overtime in excess of 40 hours a week while attending school. They are not necessarily from a deprived background so that they have to support a family. In some cases this is the case and I would hope that we could provide for family livelihoods through better programmes of social assistance, rather than depending upon students to support their family when they are in their high school years.

Quite often what they end up supporting is a car.

I have discussed this with these people when they are older, and I think there is some agreement on this and it is a sort of a thing which we get into. I think that we should really demand value. We should invest in education but invest wisely and I am convinced that a lot more could be done at the secondary level than is being done at present. This is merely due to the type of attitude that we take toward education. We don't really demand that students perform at that level. When they go to university there's a shock treatment — they suddenly discover what it is to work about 14 hours a day. Many of them fall by the wayside.

I think that things like this should be considered and considered very seriously. I am not making a proposal tongue-in-cheek. I think that when one goes to university they do start to work toward this. Perhaps there should be a little bit of a change so that when a student at least comes out of junior high school into a senior high school he knows that there has been some profound difference and something is expected of him.

The philosophy that was given yesterday would seem not to be in conflict with the preservation of small schools. There is a tendency today because of preoccupation with financial matters — in fact in our district we consider the school bus the holy cow of the whole institution in bureaucracy… It seems that nothing can be done educationally without consulting and finding out what effect this will have on the school bus system. Fortunately our school bus system has become rather flexible and the schools have been flexible and we have staggered opening times and such in school district No. 7. But there is a tendency to close down small schools and to bus children from areas.

As one who was in fact living in Vancouver, in the more or less east end — Vancouver Heights, North Burnaby part of town —  and not being able to afford to go to university in my first year after high school graduation, I went to Duke of Connaught in New Westminster. I must say that it was a very nice experience except for one thing, and that was the bus trip across town.

That was rather unusual. Not too many people chose to travel such a distance — from almost the Pacific Coliseum over to New Westminster. The bus service at that time was probably better than it is today but it was nothing to write home about.

I spent a great deal of that year travelling on buses. I think it's lamentable that we can arbitrarily, using a pencil and without taking account the value of the child's time, make decisions to bus children, close down small rural schools, close down small high schools for the sake of efficiency — which might turn out to be a social debt.

There is the instance in our district of the

[ Page 479 ]

consolidation of elementary schools. There's a recent incident of the closing down of the Crawford Bay elementary school. Some of the students indeed have to go by bus to reach that school; now they're going to have to go about another 50 miles down to Creston. And they're cutting out two grades.

I've observed several of the large schools in Vancouver. I've taught in a fairly small school and watched it grow to a population of about 700. I don't really think that you can do that much more in a school of 2,000 than you can do in a school of 500. You just do it four times over.

I think that the role of a teaching force in implementing a philosophy of education cannot be overlooked. With something as simple as bringing in a new elementary school programme, something as simple as arithmetic, it's very difficult to really get the programme across. Bringing in family life studies, sex education and such, I think, will be an extremely challenging task — something which is well worthwhile, but something which will take a great deal of effort.

I think it can be done in a secondary school. But in the elementary schools there are going to have to be some real changes in thought. Because elementary school teachers are expected to be physical education perfectionists. They're expected to put on strip for maybe two hours of the week and be proficient at basketball, volleyball, gymnastics, tumbling, games, contests and relays and everything else. Then they're also expected to be proficient in arithmetic, gung-ho on science, social studies — and it's expected by those of us in the senior secondary schools that these people will perform up to our expectations.

I think that we're asking far too much of the elementary school teachers. We're asking them to specialize in about seven areas, whereas those of us in a secondary school education role only have to specialize in one or two.

I think that family life education certainly will have to begin in the elementary school. We're going to have to give these people the support, the tools, with which to do this type of job.

I'm glad to see that we've moved towards smaller classes in the elementary schools. That will certainly help a lot in that role.

I think, too, that in bringing in new programmes and new philosophy we'll have to involve the students to a greater extent — that things cannot be imposed from without.

I recall when effective living was brought in — now as an adult, It was brought in by the Minister of Education at that time, Tillie Rolston. In retrospect I realize that it was good, progressive and a far sighted programme. But when I was in school as a student at the time it was introduced, we didn't know what was going on. We watched the kind of flippant comments that were made in the Press about it. We

[ Page 480 ]

dubbed it "effective loving." I think all these irresponsible types of attitudes contributed to the demise of that programme and to the watered-down thing, which was called "guidance, health and drudgery."

We have to work hard to implement new philosophies and new ideas. In this respect I think that we will have to work very hard to make the regional district concept work. I think that the regional district concept is an extremely important concept, especially in an area such as Nelson-Creston. But there are many problems with it today.

The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) has mentioned, in elaborating on remarks made in the House — he, I think, elaborated to the Press — that one of the problems with the regional district is that they are bound together to form a rational and viable tax assessment base, rather than a rational, common community interest.

He gives the example, which really affects my area, of Trail being tied in with Rock Creek. Now to get from Trail to Rock Creek, you first of all must climb a 5,600 foot mountain pass, which receives a great deal of snowfall — rather treacherous in the winter — to get just over to Grand Forks. Then you must travel a few more little hills and much winding road to get to Rock Creek, which is pretty close to Osoyoos.

The rationale for this is to tie in the assessment base of Cominco, I suppose, to shore up the other parts of the Okanagan boundary regional district. But in fact it would be much more desirable, in terms of mutual community interest, to tie in Trail with Castlegar-Kinnaird and Nelson-Creston — or at least with Nelson.

I think that he has proposed — or flown a kite perhaps, on a very good proposal — to introduce equalization payments between regional districts, so that we no longer have to tie them together on the basis of purely economic factors. We can tie them together on a rational basis in terms of a common community interest.

Mr. Speaker, the longer I've thought about this matter, the more sense it makes. In the City of Nelson they're a far sighted, rather socialistic city. Back about 1904 they saw fit to start up an electrical power plant, and they have been and are still in the business of producing electrical power and distributing electrical power.

The City of Nelson in recent times has been working on a land assembly programme for an industrial park. They're not going to sell that land but they're going to lease it. They wish to encourage industry in the area.

Nelson is built on a hillside and there isn't very much available land for industry or anything else. There's a preoccupation with developing land within the city limits in order to increase the tax assessment Well, this could be very readily rectified if there were equalization payments between all municipalities, cities and so forth. I know that there is a system of this today, but I mean a real equalization system. Who does it protect when a place like Kitimat has a low tax assessment and a place like Creston, an agricultural community, has a very high tax assessment? It's protecting business. It's not protecting farmers; it's not protecting people. I think everybody should pay a more equal share in this respect.

So there's this preoccupation with developing land within the confines of the city in order to reduce the mill rate by increasing the assessment values. It would be much more rational perhaps to develop an industrial park, perhaps five miles outside of the city. It would bring in the industry that we desire. It would bring in the jobs. But it would preserve the community and give it a mild measure of growth.

I would like to even take this a little further than this. You take the business of school taxes. Now perhaps the solution is to remove school taxes altogether. But failing that, does it make sense that the Creston-Kaslo School District No. 86 has had mill rates for the last five or six years ranging from 36 to 39 mills, and a place like Lillooet, which just happens to have Bridge River on its assessment rolls, has a tax rate perhaps about half of that?

A rather interesting digression on that is the fact that the previous government promised — and I have letters which I didn't want to bring into this House but which led the Creston school district to believe that when they incorporated Kaslo, the Duncan dam would be included in the assessment rolls. That has never come to pass. Perhaps, as I've said, the answer to that will be to remove school tax altogether.

But it seems rather inconsistent that B.C. Hydro's — I forget the name of the dam I just mentioned. I recall it being built back around 1950, previous to Duncan, way back in the 1950's. It's Bridge River. It seems rather strange that Bridge River is assessed and that the Duncan dam is not assessed. Well, we know the history of it.

I think too that in regional districts people are really going to have to work together. Right now the regional district people get together once or twice a month. An alderman takes time out from his civic duties and for one day he gives his priority to the interests of the regional district. He might bring to that meeting three or four votes, whereas someone else who is from a rural area brings one vote. As I've outlined before, there are very diverse interests.

I don't think it has worked for this reason. I think they're going to have to make a greater effort. I think this is going to have to be pointed out to people in regional government. Perhaps one of the things that will lead to that would be to have the city and municipality representatives run as regional district representatives. In Nelson they're appointed by council, by the mayor I believe.

[ Page 481 ]

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): By council.

MR. NICOLSON: By council, thank you. I stand corrected or informed. I believe that it should be one man, one vote. I believe that if a city is entitled to three votes, it should get three votes and they should have to stand and run for that position.

I'm not trying to tear down the regional district concept. I'm offering suggestions. I believe it's very necessary. It isn't working. It can work much, much more effectively than it is today. I think that just as it is necessary for these people from different communities — for instance, in my area, people from Nakusp meeting with people from Creston to decide something of importance to the people of Kinnaird — to listen to each other.

Just as it's important for them to listen to each other, I think it's important for us to listen to each other when someone perhaps from Peace River country talks about the problems of that area. It's important for us to listen to them very carefully, whether we be from Victoria, Vancouver or the Kootenays.

The matter of highways has always been of great interest. Today I'm not going to ask for more blacktop. I'll ask for that another day. In fact, I might ask that one piece of blacktop be ripped up. We have about $2.5 million cloverleaf interchange in the midst of Nelson which could only do justice to a community the size of Victoria, almost. We're rather awed by the dimensions of this thing and I have reason to believe that the original estimates might balloon to something like $7 million. Needless to say, the people of Nelson-Creston were not impressed.

One thing of great interest to people in the interior and of concern is the tendency of legislative bodies to rule out studded tires. Evidence has been produced to show that studded tires are not effective. They don't help cars to stop. They cause great wear on highways. But when one looks into these so-called facts — for instance, that they don't help cars in their stopping or starting abilities… I've seen a television documentary prepared in Ontario, I suppose by the government, to propagandize the people of that province. It claimed that at 0º F studded tires were no more effective than summer tires. I don't doubt that; I don't dispute it. I've driven into Hudson Hope in the middle of winter — I might add before the Peace River dam was built — with summer tires in over a foot of snow in the month of December in zero temperatures. I wouldn't want to try to drive in there had that temperature been around 30º or 32º.

Some of the evidence on studded tires claims great wear. One of the most often quoted studies was done in Whiting, Indiana. It wasn't done on a car. It was done on a testing machine which ran around in a circular track of 14-foot diameter at speeds from 5 to 35 miles per hour. Upon analysis, engineers have corrected this model and correlated it and said that it would actually compare with a car going around a normal cloverleaf of a freeway at 180 miles per hour, So the evidence has been spurious.

The facts are that at 30º — and one has to remember that part of a stopping distance of a car, perhaps 33 or 44 feet at 30 miles per hour, is just purely reaction time, but I'm giving total stopping distances — with an unstudded tire on packed snow at 30 miles per hour, it will go 210 feet. With two studded rear tires, it will go 176 feet. With four studded tires, it will stop in a distance of 150 feet. When you subtract almost 50 feet for reaction time, it means that four studded wheels is about 80 per cent more efficient than an unstudded summer tire or a winter tire. The stopping ability on ice is even greater.

In considering politics for people or government for people or budgets for people, I think that we have to consider the people of this province who must drive to work day in and day out. There are no excuses. We don't close down our schools in the interior when we get a little snowfall. We're equipped to handle it. We've got good road-clearing machinery and such. We just cannot shut down up there every time we have a foot and a half of snow. This means getting to work. This means school buses getting to school. While they can get through snow quite easily, they cannot get past cars that are snarled and in ditches and across roads.

One of the most dangerous experiences in Nelson is climbing up a very steep hill. You can climb up it and until your traction holds and you start slipping, you're fine. If you don't have good purchase on all four wheels, when you put on your brakes you don't only stop going forward, you start going backward. If you've ever slid down some of the hills of Nelson backwards, I must say — I have. I didn't go very far. I just put my vehicle into the bank. There have been terrific accidents in our area — accidents that could be avoided.

I know that there is an improvement in the technology of building snow tires and studs. The fixed type of stud is on the way out. There's a new type coming in, in which under normal wear the stud will imbed itself deep in the tire and cause considerably less wear on highways. I mention this having no idea of what might be in mind but hoping that we do not follow the precedent set by Ontario and some of the American states, even the State of Hawaii.

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear announced in the budget that there would be participating grants forthcoming for recreational community centres and even for religious groups and ethnic groups — community interest groups. I think it is very important to understand the differences between the lower mainland and the interior.

[ Page 482 ]

For instance, when we speak of a ski hill, down here one might think of Garibaldi, Mount Baker, many of these large expensive developments. When one speaks of a ski hill in our area, the largest I suppose is Rossland. It's a very famous, very old ski hill. It's a community-developed ski hill. In spite of its fame, it is a community enterprise.

We have a lot of ski hills in our area. In fact, we have three right in Nelson. We have one at the Blewett Elementary School. This is listed in the report of the Department of Commercial Transport. It's a rope tow.

It's contiguous to a school. It is used during school hours as part of its physical education programme. It is used on weekends by young and old people of that community. It is supported by the people of that community. It's not a big ski hill, but it is a very important recreational facility. They are trying to develop another one at another one of the elementary schools which lends itself to this. At the elementary school where my children attend, we have a paved surface for summer tennis and winter skating. We have an outdoor skating rink there which is a flat area, which does not lend itself to skiing — but we have this type of thing.

When one speaks of a golf course down here, one might think of Shaughnessy or Gorge Vale, Colwood or Royal Victoria Golf and Country Club.

In our area, one might think of a golf club as something in which the annual membership fee is probably not more than $100 per year and which can be considerably less. Then there are golf clubs in the little community of Riondel — with sand greens; in the community of Salmo, in the community of Slocan Park — and all over.

Golf courses are not for the privileged few. They are not the country club necessarily — or if they are, fees are reasonable. Many people can join, young people, old people — everybody enjoys them. So that in formulating the concept of what is a community development, I think one will have to look very strongly at the community.

I might say that I am pleased to hear of announcements of increased acreages for parks. I might like to put in a word for Kokanee Class B Provincial Park. Kokanee Park is looking for a promotion — it would like to be class A.

Some years ago there was an oil spill within the boundaries of Kokanee Provincial Park. A mining firm had some fuel get away from it. It ran down a hill into Gibson Lake and ruined fishing. One could dispute, I suppose, the ecological impact of it, but it certainly depreciated the value of that area.

In looking at wilderness and in looking at parks, there is a law which says that the value of a recreational experience varies inversely as the amount to which that wilderness has been altered artificially. In other words as you alter a wilderness, as you supposedly develop it or if you allow mining or logging, some part of the aesthetic value of that must certainly go down. So as one goes up the other goes down. I suppose that this is what we have to look at in this province in terms of trade-offs.

We have had quite a bit of controversy over the Fry Creek Canyon and the valley behind that canyon. The Minister has ordered that the district ranger do a complete study. This first came up during the last session. Word has gone out that by February 28 it is hoped that anyone with intent to file information in an investigation of this area should do so by the end of this month. And of course they have had quite a few months in which to at least file intent to submit information.

I get a little bit of mail — and people say that only a handful of people ever use these wilderness areas. I am going to touch a few bases here today Mr. Speaker. In Kokanee Park we have recorded, last year, 11,115 day visits. These are recorded, registered visits through one entrance to the park. One could increase that probably by 50 per cent. We have recorded 1,131 camper-nights at cabins there. There is a tremendous growth starting in the area of the park use. I would say that we are today, as far as backpacking and camping and hiking, in the same position that we were in in the early 1950's with skin-diving. I recall when there were no more than 20 divers in the early 50's on the whole lower mainland.

I would submit that we are going to see an explosion — we are in fact already seeing an explosion in interest in backpacking, hiking and real wilderness camping. I think there is a tremendous demand for this and I hope that whatever comes out of investigations with Fry Creek that we will realize the need to preserve wilderness areas.

I am very pleased to note that it would appear that expenditures in the fish and wild life branch are going to be increased. I don't know if it was some combination of the Puritan ethic employed by the previous administration, but they seem to have had some hangups as far as funding wildlife is concerned, and we can only reflect upon that.

It should be noted that 60 per cent of the revenues from hunting licences, tags and fines — 60 per cent of the revenues for that department come from resident and non-resident hunters; whereas only 40 per cent come from fishermen. The expenditures on the other hand would indicate that about 50 times as much money is spent on fisheries resource as is spent on the hunting resource. I would not submit of course that one be cut back at the expense of the other. But I would submit that if one investigates the results of a Pearse Bowden study on average daily costs; and if one looks at the average licence cost per day of recreational use — that the non-resident hunter spent for licences, tags and such, per day that he used it, $11.20 and that could perhaps be increased. The

[ Page 483 ]

non-resident fisherman paid 97 cents.

Now Mr. Speaker, non-resident golfers come up here and they pay $5 and $10 for green fees, but they were paying 97 cents for the privilege of fishing. That is on an average daily cost — where you divide the number of days fished into the cost for licence. The resident hunter paid 70 cents and the resident fisherman paid 27 cents per day of use.

I would submit that there should be a significant increase in fees, particularly for the non-resident fisherman. It is a source of continuing aggravation in our area to see non-resident fishermen come in and proceed to can fish — one can say there are laws against it, but there are not enough people to enforce those laws.

I anticipate that from estimates and such — and we can talk about those later — it would look as if there is going to be an increase in the number of conservation officers. I must say that I greet that and it is long, long overdue.

I might also say that in my riding in 1968 a bill was passed, I believe it was called Bill 65. It designated the remaining unimproved portion of the Creston Flood Plain — and we have flood plains in Nelson-Creston as well as in Chilliwack, Mr. Speaker, — the remaining portion of this was set aside for waterfowl development. There has been some talk about doing studies and that we are going to be studied to death or something and nothing will get done. I would submit that it is perhaps worse to do a study after the fact than it is before.

I am a duck hunter and I support this in principle and commend most of the work that has been done. But the remaining flood plain of Creston had been used just about entirely for grazing and for hunting, when it was decided to improve the quality of hunting and waterfowl management. Bill 65 I believe, passed unanimously in this House — but from that day, there was no consideration given to those who had traditional grazing rights.

In 1969 there were 2,272 animal unit months of grazing permitted, and that is after the management area came into effect. In 1970 it decreased and in 1971 it decreased some more. In 1972 it was down to 1,275 animal unit months, almost down to one-half.

There has been nothing done to try to restore some of these traditional rights. One can say, I suppose, that the people have no rights on this land. I guess that those who are so concerned now about farmers' rights are perhaps realizing from experience, a little late, what can happen to farmers when we forget about — them.

I think something can be done about it. Recently the Donleal farm, which is within this area, has been purchased by the Creston Valley Waterfowl Management area — which by the way is jointly administered by the provincial government and the Canadian Wildlife Service, with some help from Ducks Unlimited.

I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources and Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams) could in some way put a person into the administration setup of this area, someone who has a primary interest in agriculture, so that they can create intensified grazing to replace that which was lost to these people in an industry which today is a very viable industry.

Mr. Speaker, I might say, about doing studies, that this study was finally published in 1971. It is a Pearse Bowden report on the Creston flood plain, "Evaluation of Alternatives for Development."

When our party was in Opposition, the Premier's administrative assistant, as he now is — at that time the Opposition research assistant — tried on several occasions to obtain this document for me, both before its final printing and since its final printing.

I wondered what kind of explosive information was contained within its pages. I had planned to read it today but the hour is late. This is called the "Creston Flood Plain Evaluation of Alternatives for Development." It's by Pearse Bowden Economic Consultants Ltd. The report is to the British Columbia Fish and Wildlife Branch and the Canadian Wildlife Service.

Pearse Bowden has pioneered, perhaps, in this area in doing economic studies of the value of wildlife, waterfowl and fisheries management. They evaluated the best economic alternatives from three points of view. One point of view was that of the local community, Creston. It clearly came out in favour of an agricultural use.

The second point of view was from the point of view of the province. It would appear that the edge went to waterfowl management use and, in considering the over-all best use for the country, for Canada and North America, it was clearly in favour of waterfowl management. But not on this basis did they really make the decision, because this was published in 1971. The study was completed about three years after the fact. There was no closing the barn door after the cow was out.

So I would like to say to my friends in the Opposition, I was glad to hear that they were back in the House today. I enjoyed their comments.

I'd like to take issue with one remark — on the proposal that the homeowner grant be in the amount of taxes less $1 for pensioners. Well, I might agree with that if we set some limits on it. But, Mr. Speaker, I'm not submitting that we should exempt someone…we have one pensioner in my riding who lives in probably a $250,000 home. I don't know that that pensioner should be exempted. I might agree with him if this were up to some limit — which in fact is what the homeowner grant is, as it is presently constituted.

[ Page 484 ]

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Delta.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, it's not difficult to stand in this House and support the budget. It's even easier, I find, to stand here to support this first budget of the NDP Government, when we find the comments that we're getting from the outside. I find that the comments that we're getting from outside are in support of the budget.

I know that the Opposition Members in this House have used various names to describe the budget. However, the phone calls I hear from back home are all complimentary.

The people out there are not calling the budget a Social Credit budget; they're not calling it a tinker toy budget; they're not even calling it a socialist budget. People are referring to it as a "people's" budget.

I find they're saying that we're entering a new era in British Columbia. The emphasis is on people. The emphasis has shifted from material things and is now on people's programmes. Certainly the move to provide minimum income for all the senior citizens, the handicapped and the blind, is a major step in the direction of providing benefits for people.

The $10 million fund set up to provide for a one-third sharing of the construction of recreational facilities is a move to providing improved benefits for people as well. The one-third provincial contribution toward the construction of recreational facilities will be a real benefit to the young and the old throughout the whole Province of British Columbia. I am sure it will be welcomed by all people.

It's certainly a complete reversal of what happened in the years gone by. In the days of the former government, recreational facilities weren't encouraged. In fact, there were times when the previous administration not only discouraged the development of recreational facilities, but they actually prevented municipalities from proceeding on their own.

In that rapidly-growing area across the Gulf of Georgia, in Delta, where a great many people made their homes and started new lives in that new community, they found very little in the way of sports and recreational facilities. I know that's true. We really did not have very much. We did not have a proper recreational facility at all. We had an old ice arena and some curling sheets in an old hangar in the Boundary Bay airport. But even that was condemned because it was an old wartime building. The thing gradually weakened and the roof was condemned.

The people soon got together. They held meetings and started a campaign for proper facilities. They worked with the local council and the Parks and Recreation Commission. They quickly had some sketches made. Estimates were prepared and the money by-law was placed before the people.

The bylaw was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people. Everyone had great hopes. We actually expected construction to start very, very quickly.

But there was a problem. The provincial government of that day imposed a freeze on the construction. I believe they said that the freeze was intended to help hold back inflation. But when the thaw came and the money was made available to the community, the municipality was unable to obtain any bids for the structure within the estimates.

It seems that the inflation they were supposed to be holding back had in fact sneaked up on them and almost prevented the construction of the recreational centres in Delta.

What a difference we have today. The old government held back the construction of recreation facilities while the new, enlightened people's government is encouraging construction of the recreation facilities by offering to pay one-third of the cost.

The recreation centres in Delta were just opened last fall, in November and December, and they're already overcrowded. These facilities are being used around the clock. Some young people have to get up at 2, 3, or 4 o'clock in the morning just to get some time to skate. Well, it's a terrible state of affairs when these little children have to get up in the middle of the night. They aren't the ones that are doing most of the complaining. It's the parents, and I don't blame them. It's tough on poor old Dad when he has to get up and drive the young people to the sports centre at 2 or 3 in the morning.

I'm sure the people out there are very much appreciative of the encouragement and the assistance proposed in the one-third recreational construction contained in the budget. I am hopeful that the responsible civic bodies in Delta will take the initiative and prepare for presentation of another bylaw to the people to provide further recreational facilities.

I believe the people will support another bylaw to build another facility for two reasons: one, because of the provincial government's one-third share; but secondly, because they trust us to keep our promises to remove the school tax from the home and the family farm, which will make it much easier on the taxpayers to build recreational facilities.

The other day a Member of the official Opposition was holding up a Standard Oil advertisement and questioning the advisability of increasing the corporation tax from 10 to 12 per cent. He went on to say: "I just want to know one thing about this whole deal. Why do we want to squeeze these corporations — why do we want to squeeze them out of existence?"

[ Page 485 ]

He went on defending the need for profit and all the good that is created by profit and finally he said: "The only time we lose is when the profits are being taken out of the country." I can understand these large corporations needing someone in the House to defend their interests and of course to defend their profits. What I can't understand is the Hon. Member's lack of knowledge of the state of most of the corporations in Canada. Most of these corporations have their headquarters outside of the country. Certainly the only corporation he mentioned in his speech has its headquarters in the United States.

In the Hon. Member's speech she referred to the Minister of Finance as having a dual personality. I was going to suggest that the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) has a dual personality, but after re-reading his speech from Hansard it seems his personality is a split personality and the two parts are confronting one another.

I'm sure the people out there have great expectations. I have great hopes. I believe we see in this budget only the beginning of what we expect to accomplish. We made a pledge during the election campaign and it is the policy of our party. We said an NDP government will remove school taxes from the home and the family farm over a five year period. I recognize there's some problems and I realize that we're going to work out these details and set the programme in motion. We all know that it can't be done overnight.

The increase in the municipal grant by $2 per capita and the freeing of the use of that money, and the increase in the homeowners' grant, is what we're able to do at this time. What we cannot accept and will not accept is that the homeowners' grant is any solution to the rising municipal tax bill on the home or the family farm. We all know the story. For a number of years we have seen the homeowners' grant increased. However, the municipal tax bill has always increased far more than the homeowners' grant.

We have all heard from the senior citizens or from that family that is down on their luck due to unemployment or illness. Their income sometimes has been drastically cut. I have had these people — most of them senior citizens — telling me that while they have lived in the family home for many years, they are forced to sell because they can't afford the taxes.

Well, we have a pledge. We're going to remove that school tax from the home and the family farm. The cost of education will be financed out of provincial general revenues so that the people can continue to live in their home.

I believe we should take a good look at just what's happening in the lower mainland municipalities with regard to industrial development. So often we hear of municipal politicians, that is, candidates that are running for municipal office, promising to bring industry to their particular municipality. They do this in order to try and improve or broaden the tax base.

We often find municipalities creating one kind of a situation or another and competing with a neighbouring municipality to have a certain industry located in a particular municipality. This leads to bad planning in some cases and can create a host of problems in the field of providing a service for these industries.

I believe we should put a stop to this sort of thing and I believe we can. We just shouldn't sit idly by and watch the industries being located in places where they shouldn't be — just for the sake of tax dollars that may be available in different municipalities.

There are some areas that are bedroom municipalities to major centres. I submit that, if that is what the area is best suited for, then that's what it should be used for. I believe it is wrong — completely wrong — to try for some sort of balance of a municipality's tax role by locating an industry where it isn't ideally suited.

We can solve the problem. I suggest that when we have our study on municipal legislation that we seriously consider having all industrial tax either collected by the regional district or by the provincial government. I submit that if this industrial tax were collected by the regional or the provincial government and then distributed to the municipalities on a per capita basis, or perhaps even used for regional expenses, we would eliminate the unhealthy competition that is presenting itself in development. It would be completely fair to all municipalities.

I am sure that such a plan would be welcomed by most of the planning departments in the various municipalities. A lot of the pressure that we have at the present time would be lifted from the planners and they would be able to more freely plan for proper development of their area.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard a call for more blacktop in many areas of the province, in this House, including, much to my surprise, even Kamloops, where I thought that there was a surplus of blacktop. In fact, over the years we've heard that blacktop was stored in Kamloops and just held there in case it was needed. We need some of that blacktop in Delta. I'm hopeful that we'll get some of the highways budget spent in Delta. Scott Road or 120th Street, as it is now called, is a boundary between Surrey and Delta municipalities. It is also a major link for Pattullo bridge traffic to New Westminster and Vancouver. The traffic situation on Scott Road is one horrible mess.

Traffic either has to be rerouted or Scott Road has to be widened, curbed, guttered and lined with proper sidewalks. We need a signal light on Scott Road at 80th Avenue. We've needed it for a long time. In the past we were always told that it was going to be installed in the next couple of weeks, but

[ Page 486 ]

the person that kept telling that to the people of Delta is long gone from the Legislature. We're working on a plan and now we've been assured that a light is coming at 80th and Scott. But no one knows when. I hope no one has to get killed while we're waiting. That is perhaps a bad thing to suggest but it has happened. It happened at 72nd Avenue and Scott Road and I certainly hope that it doesn't happen again.

The other problem that we have there is the Pattullo bridge itself. It's overloaded. It's too narrow and it just wasn't built for today's traffic. I have said before and I will say it again, that what we need most of all to solve the traffic problem in the Scott Road — Pattullo bridge area is an overall traffic transit system — a major transit system. However, the transit buses, trains, monorails or whatever we are going to finally have is going to have to find its way across the Fraser River. I suggest that the present bridges just won't carry any more traffic than they presently have.

The plans should be made now for another crossing of the river, because it is something that we will require and a great deal of thought has to be put into it. A start must be made in the very near future. We must plan for the movement of people and that means another crossing of the main arm of the Fraser River. A transit system must be part of the planning for the next crossing of the Fraser River.

I must raise another problem that I am very concerned about. I'm concerned about the fishing industry and the people who make their living from the sea. Many people in British Columbia make their living from the sea. They depend on the industry.

These people — many of them from Delta and certainly many of them from my family, we are an old fishing family on the Fraser River — travel to very remote areas of the coast. They work in very hazardous industries and they are most always a long way away from any hospital facility. If we really mean what we say about being concerned about people then we must provide an air ambulance service for the north coast of British Columbia. Most particularly the north coast.

Fishermen, and particularly those who live in the northern communities, have been demanding an air ambulance service for a long time. In the past these demands have fallen on deaf ears of the former government. Now with this new Government and its concern for the needs of the people, I and friends of mine that work in the fishing industry, and particularly those in the northern part of the industry, expect to see an air ambulance service in the very near future.

We have made another pledge to the people in the fishing industry. Our election programme, entitled "new deal for people," stated: "An NDP government will establish a provincial Department of Fisheries to deal with conservation and development of this important natural resource."

We said in our programme that we will establish a provincial Department of Fisheries. We said we would develop new regulations to protect our fisheries from thoughtless logging and mining and industrial developments and we said we would press for a north Pacific fisheries pact signed by all countries fishing in the area.

We must become involved in what's going on in the fishing industry of this province. Too many times when we leave this in the hands of Ottawa with no consideration from the Province of British Columbia, we see sections of our industry traded off to other nations for other considerations. B.C. must have a voice in what's happening.

We've said too, that we are going to press to have the continental shelf recognized as Canada's territorial fishing limit. The industry is changing and changing rapidly. The changes affect the lives of many people who work in the industry. I think that we just must become involved in a major way in just what is happening in that industry. I have said it before and I will say it again.

The east coast provinces have Departments of Fisheries. Newfoundland has a Department of Fisheries; Nova Scotia has a Department of Fisheries; New Brunswick and even little Prince Edward Island have Departments of Fisheries. Certainly British Columbia is lacking in not having a Department of Fisheries.

The entire fishing industry, that is the people who work in the industry and the people who are in management, are concerned about this issue and they and the people who are in management, are concerned about this issue and they have all made representation in the past that a provincial Department of Fisheries be established. They're all concerned now that we honour our election promise, and I'm sure that we will.

The fishing industry has been threatened from all sides. The livelihood of all those who work in the industry is in jeopardy. If we expect to save the industry, we must act and we must act very soon. With the proper kind of approach we can co-operate with the federal people in rebuilding the salmon runs to their former greatness.

In the early days fishermen used to sink their boats with fish in the Fraser River. They used to catch more fish than they could sell. Even I, and I'm a young fellow, can remember when fishermen used to load their boats in the Fraser River. That hasn't happened now for some time.

Today it's difficult. It's really impossible to earn a living by fishing in the Fraser River alone. That's the result of a gradual deterioration of the salmon fishery.

The fishermen want the Premier, and for that matter they want all the Members of the Legislature

[ Page 487 ]

to become more familiar with their industry. I am therefore, at the request of some of my neighbours and friends, inviting the Premier, cabinet Ministers and any Member of this House to come out fishing a day or two during the salmon season. You'll be welcome to spend a few days aboard the boats, and we hope none of you get seasick.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I'll go.

MR. LIDEN: Good! You're all welcome.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You set it up, Carl.

MR. LIDEN: It's all set up.

I think there's much to be done. In addition to improving and rebuilding the salmon runs, I think the lakes in B.C., with the proper kind of management and the proper kind of approach, should be able to develop an entirely new fishery. Other countries are doing it. If we use some vision, let's just think about what kind of a development we could have in those lakes of British Columbia.

We could develop an industry that's new, an industry that's clean, an industry that's healthy and an industry that would be contributing to the further future world food supply. With an enthusiastic and aggressive Department of Fisheries, we could do some great things, and I hope that the setting up of a department will have a very high priority.

There is one other matter that I would like to deal with before closing and that's the policy of B.C. Hydro. Hydro has been cutting through Delta with its power lines for a long time. Power lines in Delta are like spaghetti. When the people arrive in Delta from the ferry terminal at Tsawwassen, they are greeted by power lines. There are power lines everywhere. This policy must stop. I hope that we can impress on the Hydro directors that all future power lines in a built up area must be put underground.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this first budget of this new Government is a good beginning with better things to come and I support it.

Hon. Mr. Levi moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, I beg to make a statement at this time with leave of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to yesterday's debate with respect to the assistance for Vietnam with medical services and medical supplies. Today I was contacted by the Medical Association of B.C. and they indicated that they would co-operate with us in every way they possibly can and that they are most in favour of that resolution that was passed in this House yesterday.

Also, I'll be going to cabinet tomorrow and requesting that this Government get in touch with the Ottawa government. As you know, we have 15 to 17 200-bed emergency hospitals in this province, scattered throughout this province, and I'll be asking that Ottawa co-operate with us in sending at least one of these 200-bed emergency hospitals to Vietnam.

Hon. Mr. Strachan files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick files answers to questions 154, 155 and 156.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files answers to questions 102, 118, 139, 141, 160, 210 and 229.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.